<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<head>
    <title>Various reviews</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
    <meta name="Author" content="Fernando H. Canto" />
    <meta name="Keywords" content="reviews, albums, music, Captain Beefheart, The Who, Rolling Stones, Genesis, King Crimson, Wire" />
    <link rel="stylesheet" title="Classic Blue" href="code/classic.css" />
    <link rel="alternate stylesheet" title="Plainish" href="code/plain.css" />
</head>

<body>

<h1>
    Other reviews
</h1>

<p>
  <a href="#replica">Captain Beefheart - Trout Mask Replica</a><br />
  <a href="#baby">Captain Beefheart - Lick My Decals Off, Baby</a><br />
  <a href="#blonde">Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde</a><br />
  <a href="#bleed">The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed</a><br />
  <a href="#fingers">The Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers</a><br />
  <a href="#out">The Who - The Who Sell Out</a><br />
  <a href="#tommy">The Who - Tommy</a><br />
  <a href="#next">The Who - Who's Next</a><br />
  <a href="#quadrophenia">The Who - Quadrophenia</a><br />
  <a href="#aqualung">Jethro Tull - Aqualung</a><br />
  <a href="#brick">Jethro Tull - Thick As A Brick</a><br />
  <a href="#play">Jethro Tull - A Passion Play</a><br />
  <a href="#beast">Jethro Tull - Broadsword And The Beast</a><br />
  <a href="#cryme">Genesis - Nursery Cryme</a><br />
  <a href="#foxtrot">Genesis - Foxtrot</a><br />
  <a href="#pound">Genesis - Selling England By The Pound</a><br />
  <a href="#broadway">Genesis - The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway</a><br />
  <a href="#gabriel1">Peter Gabriel - Peter Gabriel</a><br />
  <a href="#gabriel2">Peter Gabriel - Peter Gabriel</a><br />
  <a href="#gabriel3">Peter Gabriel - Peter Gabriel</a><br />
  <a href="#gabriel4">Peter Gabriel - Peter Gabriel</a><br />
  <a href="#so">Peter Gabriel - So</a><br />
  <a href="#king">King Crimson - In The Court Of The Crimson King</a><br />
  <a href="#lizard">King Crimson - Lizard</a><br />
  <a href="#islands">King Crimson - Islands</a><br />
  <a href="#aspic">King Crimson - Larks' Tongues In Aspic</a><br />
  <a href="#black">King Crimson - Starless And Bible Black</a><br />
  <a href="#red">King Crimson - Red</a><br />
  <a href="#discipline">King Crimson - Discipline</a><br />
  <a href="#flag">Wire - Pink Flag</a><br />
  <a href="#missing">Wire - Chairs Missing</a><br />
  <a href="#straits">Dire Straits - Dire Straits</a><br />
  <a href="#gold">Dire Straits - Love Over Gold</a><br />
  <a href="#arms">Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms</a><br />
</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Captain Beefheart</h2>

<h2 id="replica">Trout Mask Replica (1969)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Pachuco Cadaver</big><em>, but several others qualify.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Frownland ++</span></li>
  <li>The Dust Blows Forward 'n The Dust Blows Back</li>
  <li>Dachau Blues <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Ella Guru <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Hair Pie: Bake 1 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Moonlight On Vermont ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Pachuco Cadaver ++</span></li>
  <li>Bill's Corpse</li>
  <li>Sweet Sweet Bulbs</li>
  <li>Neon Meate Dream Of A Octofish <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>China Pig <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>My Human Gets Me Blues</li>
  <li>Dali's Car <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Hair Pie: Bake 2 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Pena ++</span></li>
  <li>Well</li>
  <li>When Big Joan Sets Up <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Fallin' Ditch</li>
  <li><span class="good">Sugar 'n Spikes ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Ant Man Bee ++</span></li>
  <li>Orange Claw Hammer</li>
  <li>Wild Life</li>
  <li>She's Too Much For My Mirror</li>
  <li>Hobo Chang Ba</li>
  <li><span class="good">Blimp (mousetrapreplica) ++</span></li>
  <li>Steal Softly Through Snow</li>
  <li>Old Fart At Play</li>
  <li><span class="good">Veteran's Day Poppy ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Now, if you're one of those intellectual snobs who only like music that's "challenging" and "ingelligent" to you, this one must be somewhere near the top of your pile. The only problem is that, eventually, that kind of people must come to the realisation that this album isn't <em>only</em> for them. See, there's always a kind of bias when it comes to talk about album like this, exactly because of its nature, and that can potentially cause a lot of confusion. What's the possible cure? Something that demands a bit of effort both from the writer and from the reader of this review, for example. Just try to picture yourself <em>never</em> hearing about this album, and having no idea of what it is. If that's actually your case, even better. If it isn't, try picturing yourself like this. Can we start?</p>

<p>Wait a bit.</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>Okay, see, Don Van Vliet (that's Captain Beefheart, if you're not aware) had a very unique, unusual style of making music. Well, so a lot of people do. And his style tends more to "avant-garde", you know. Experimental. Difficult. A bit like Frank Zappa, really - who incidentally was a big friend of Captain Beefheart, and the producer of this album. But whereas Frank Zappa made his music tricky, often dissonant and often obnoxious as an artistic statement, made exactly to confuse and challenge people, and other bands like The Residents aimed towards satire, Beefheart had that style because <em>that's the way it should be</em>. You can't possibly apply "satire", "humour", "social critique" or anything like that to this album, because that's not the intention. What he and the Magic Band were doing here was pure, unadultered <em>music</em>. Music, really, and that's the way this album should be seen as. But before you approach it, you should know how it is. And hey, this is a review, isn't it? Hooray. On surface, the most superficial of surfaces, most songs here might sound all the same. And indeed, the band's sound is nearly identical in several tracks. But it's useless to say they are "all the same thing", 'cause that would be running over the most interesting and exciting thing about the album: the detais, the subtleties, the nuances.</p>

<p>Roughly speaking, on several moments here, the instruments don't agree with each other <em>at all</em>. But what's the more amazing is that the Magic Band isn't just pulling off random improvisation! They were actually following an interesting notation Captain Beefheart invented for them, so yes, they are playing <em>written music</em>. Maybe with a bit of improvisation thrown on top. Maybe. Other than that, the instruments are being played as if to intentionally clash against each other: one guitarist in each speaker ("Zoot Horn Rollo" and "Antennae Jimmy Semens"), sometimes plucking strange chords, sometimes playing riffs, sometimes going into something difficult to follow. Adding to that already strange vision, the drums stumble, roll and crash all over the place, so much that it's even difficult to say they are following any kind of rhythm sometimes. Yet,they are played with amazing skill and precision, by the drummer, "Drumbo" - yes, the whole Magic Band had silly pseudonyms. In fact, there's a very interesting tale of two kids who lived near where the band was recording (or rehearsing, I don't remember) the album, and they wanted to get the drummer to play on their own band, thinking they weren't a signed band since they "sucked". Eventually, they talked with Captain Beefheart and realised that they were actually recording an album, and that conversation can be heard at the end of 'Hair Pie, Bake 1' ("It's a bush recording. We're out recording a bush."). Going back to the band's sound, having the guitars and drums so distant from each other, the bassist ("Rockette Morton") doesn't adhere to either side. Instead, it goes on into its own groove, somewhere in the middle, bouncing up and down, left and right. And on top, you get Captain Beefheart in all his glory, sometimes reciting some "nonsense" lyrics, sometimes singing with one of his absurd voices, other times playing brasses as if they couldn't possibly play actual "notes". Just check him out playing two saxophones at the same time on 'And Man Bee'.</p>

<p>That's one way you can approach the album. Another is to just think of it as several chunks of random pseudo-music, or a couple of songs "screwed up" by purposefully awful playing. Maybe those approaches will work for you, but they won't be enough to reveal all the power the album has. See, when I heard it the first times, I did <em>like</em> it somewhat, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as enough as I enjoy it now. Possibly I was unprepared for the stuff, which isn't surprising. But an actual obstacle is its length. It's a double LP, going up to seventy nine minutes. If you go that far, all at once, the last songs might end up sounding like a huge blur of stuff. It can be a good idea to just taste one side at a time. The more acclimated to this kind of music might prefer to swim hearfirst into it, and that can be fun. Depends on the person, I believe. But the more important thing is to notice, at the end, how beautiful and genuinely enjoyable this album is. And one should be willing to give up his prejudice towards music like this and those people who like it. Seriously, guys, I <em>do</em> honestly enjoy this album.</p>

<p>I don't know whether the realisation came slowly to me, or if it did came all at once. But eventually, I heard how the instruments "don't agree" with each other just superficially, according to the concepts we acquired of what is harmony and what isn't. And it's clear that Captain Beefheart isn't just trying to "destroy" harmony as we know it; he's just creating his own. The album shows that with fantastic songs like 'Pachuco Cadaver', which is mostly about the bandwork, anyway, and how they flow through different "sections" of music, always finding gorgeous things to play. Over it, Don recited one of his poems, adding even more fluidness to the thing. It's gorgeous, easily one of my favourites on the album. Of course, the style sometimes is taken to utter extremes; and to help make the ride bumpy enough, the album <em>begins</em> with one of the most extreme tracks here. 'Frownland' is rather short, really, but on its 100 seconds, gets <em>constantly</em> on the verge of falling apart completely, with the instruments stumbling over each other as if Van Vliet was just kicking them around, while singing a shiny, joyful melody with a maniacal smile. Sounds freaky? Better do so. To follow it up, you get the first of his "A Capella" pieces, 'The Dust Blows Forward 'n The Dust Blows Back', which features apparently improvised-on-the-spot verses. You can hear the sound of him pressing and unpressing the pause button as he goes along. I have to admit that I'm not the hugest fan of the song, but as a simple fan of the album, I'm but obliged to accept it as a natural part of the record. And I <em>do</em> so, and I do so gleefully. There's another track like that, 'Orange Claw Hammer', that still revels in its low recording quality, and 'Well', which is better produced, with Van Vliet actually <em>chanting</em> his lyrics in one go, with a deep, ominous voice, aided by the reverb of doom.</p>

<p>As for the other songs, I can only say that, once you're listening to this album, you'll have to be prepared for <em>everything</em>. Just as they keep throwing dissonant, ugly-sounding stuff like 'Dachau Blues' (which actually has affecting lyrics about the Holocaust and whatnot) and 'My Human Gets Me Blues', you'll bump across songs that are frighteningly close to "traditionally gorgeous", like 'Sugar 'n Spikes' with its super guitar riff and vocal melodies, or 'Moonlight On Vermont', which is simply a stunning composition with the guitarists playing one awesome, memorable riff after another like there was no tomorrow, and some of the most hypnotising tricks Captain Beefheart ever pulled off, I believe. In fact, <em>this</em> song's case can be explained, because it's a remnant of previous sessions. And what a magnificent one it is! In fact, it's so grandiose and different, it stands out to the point of nearly obscuring the other, more representative tracks. Heh, what a fate.</p>

<p>That only goes to show, anyway, that the album's so unpredictable that it's even unpredictable <em>in which way</em>a articular song will be unpredictable. For example, halfway through the second side, you get the blues send-up "China Pig", which as just Captain Beefheart singing, growling, making weird noises and his trademark scratchy howls over a regular, everyday (though excellently performed) Blues performance by guitarist Doug Moon. Another oddity is 'The Blimp (mousetrapreplica)', which is actually a take of the Mothers Of Invention performing Frank Zappa's own 'Charles Ives'. Beefheart phoned him on the studio and the guitarist Jeff Cotton ("Antennae Jimmy Semens") read the poem over the phone, while Beefheart played the horn sounds on the background. Wisely, Zappa pasted the recording over the music, and the finished result is what you hear in the album. And it sounds fantastic, I say! If only because Cotton's performance is fantastic, filled with an incredible tension and emotion - apparently narrating a blimp incident, maybe even referring to the Hindenburg - and it matches the music as if by complete accident. The album closer, 'Veteran's Day Poppy', after a brief sung verse, launches into almost "traditional", straightforward rock 'n' roll! For real! And then, it falls into a long, plodding groove with the guitars repeating on an on a strange, mesmerising pattern. Really great stuff! That's one of my favourites.</p>

<p>As for all the "dissonant" stuff, you'll have to learn to enjoy it. But if you listen to them beyond the surface, I'm sure that you'll find something interesting going on - even if it's on a "funny" level, like with the goofy vocals on 'Ella Guru'. Some of my favourites include 'Ant Man Bee', which starts out like some deranged blues, and then launches into a wicked, awesome instrumental groove with a constant, hypnotic bass line and Beefheart soloing madly on the saxophones. Great song. I'm also a fan of 'Pena', which starts weirdly enough with Captain Beefheart and "The Mascara Snake" rehearsing a poem, and messing up their respective lines. And then, it launches into an usual groove with Antennae Jimmy Semens putting on a poem with an <em>insanely</em> high pitched voice. Not to mention the freaky screaming by Captain Beefheart on the background. I also like 'Neon Meate Dream Of A Octofish', with a strange, "watery" background that makes justice to the song's title, and Beefheart's strangely processed voice speaking out more of his lyrics, giving more importance to the sound of the words, rather than their meaning.</p>

<p>There are some instrumentals, too. 'Hair Pie' is presented in two takes ("Bakes", actually), being the second one the "actual" piece. The first one is more like a rehearsal, backed up by soloing horns. Sounds very ordinary when described like that, but just listen to it for yourself. The most unusual is 'Dali's Car', which is a piece for two solo guitars. And the others, most of them are just the usual jazz. And yes, depending on the listener, it might all get too samey. The thing is that each song here, if looked closely enough, is just as inventive and original as every other; including the short 'Bill's Corpse', the repetitive 'Wild Life', and the lengthiest groove in the record, 'When Big Joan Sets Up'. I reckon it might be hard to get acclimated to that sound to the point of considering it "normal", and maybe it isn't even worthwhile to do that. But the album demands care, and all the care you dedicate to it will be richly rewarded, that's for sure. After all, this is an <em>artistic statement</em>, but it's also delightful, exciting and just plain <em>fun</em>. It's not <em>serious</em>, you know. Some tracks here do sound serious, like 'Wild Life', but once you're in the mood of the album, the distinction between "serious" and "non-serious" doesn't exist. And this works both ways! Those who are turned off by serious, "pretentious" music need not to be afraid of this album exactly because it's so light and fun; and those who only listen to music that can watch five straight hours of <em>El Chavo Del Ocho</em> without moving one muscle of its face need not to be afraid of this album either, because its lack of seriousness is <em>exactly</em> what's so serious about it! Ain't that CLEVER?</p>

<p>Of course, maybe I'm just making that up.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>15/15</strong></big> - <em>Amazingly</em> entertaining, fun, exciting, whatever you name it.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Yes, really.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Anyone disagree?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>15/15</strong></big> - There isn't <em>one</em> weak point here. No inconsistency whatsoever.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Might become a bit tiresome for some people. I'm not one of those people.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/15.png" alt="15" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Rants? Complaints? I'm waiting for your <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">comments</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="baby">Lick My Decals Off, Baby (1970)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>The Clouds Are Full Of Wine (Not Whiskey Or Rye)</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Lick My Decals Off, Baby <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Doctor Dark</li>
  <li>I Love You, You Big Dummy</li>
  <li>Peon <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Ballerin' Plain ++</span></li>
  <li>Woe-Is-A-Me-Bop <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Japan In A Dishpan <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>I Wanna Find Me A Woman That'll Hold My Big Toe Till I Have To Go</li>
  <li>Petrified Forest</li>
  <li>One Red Rose That I Mean <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Buggy Boogie Woogie</li>
  <li>The Smithsonian Institute Blues (or The Big Dig)</li>
  <li>Space Age Couple</li>
  <li><span class="good">The Clouds Are Full Of Wine (Not Whiskey Or Rye) ++</span></li>
  <li>Flash Gordon's Ape <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>This album was out of print for quite a long time. There has been talk that it would be reissued, but I lost track of those news, so I can't tell at the moment whether it's in print or not as we speak. Nonetheless, that is a shame. A <em>real</em> shame, because many Beefheart fans argue that this is his best album. I <em>don't</em> argue that, really, because I far prefer <strong>Trout Mask Replica</strong> to it. But that doesn't mean I don't think this is an excellent album, no sir. It's just that, for the unexperienced - okay, let's be less snobby, the <em>unacquainted</em> - this will sound like "more of the same". It's still dissonant, perhaps cacophonous, complex and "difficult". But it's not more of the same, no, it's not. Not only the sound is different, but the <em>approach</em> is different, too. And is exactly that approach which makes me enjoy this album less, but for now, let's be more objective and talk about the sound.</p>

<p>There's only one electric guitar, this time around. If you really liked the way the two electric guitar clashed against each other, one on each speaker, you might be disappointed. On the positive side, the bass guitar is given much more importance and emphasis. There's also a xylophone being played often, here. Ooh, that means a wider sonic pallette? Well... yeah. There's one more instrument here. Everything else is still here: Drumbo's manic drumming, the mad plucking of the electric guitar, and Captain Beefheart's ramblings and horn blowings. It's all here, and it's always the same. It's a sweet sound, you see! It's quite dense and thick - probably the production helps (it's not produced by Zappa). But you see, I have a few problems with the overall mood and intention of the record. It's <em>much</em> more serious than <strong>Trout Mask Replica</strong>, meaning that the spirit of mockery and freedom is lost. The funny voices of Jeff Cotton are nowhere to be seen, the non sequitur intermezzos between songs are gone (consequence of Zappa's absence), and... well, the previous album was so charming and captivating to me because it was loose, playful, uncompromised. It didn't give a damn about anything. Here, it seems Van Vliet is much more concerned with making an important, pertinent artistic statement, and ACTIVELY trying to do so. As a result, the album is very thick and solid, in the meaning that it's quite impenetrable. I tell you that if I had been introduced to Beefheart through this album and not the previous one, <em>possibly</em> I wouldn't be as drawn into his music as I am.</p>

<p>But after all, perhaps it's a question of getting attuned and accostumed to that fact and learn to accept it. <strong>Trout Mask Replica</strong> also is, primarily, an artistic statement, after all. And so is this album. And if that one was entertaining, clever and addictive, this one also is (perhaps less addictive, though). It's just not as immediately <em>fun</em>. But I can't pretend I'm disappointed by the record, since there are so many interesting tricks being played, so many GREAT musical ideas spread through it, and so much of that brilliant performance by the Magic Band. Some tracks here are absolute standouts, and undoubtedly can be considered to be some of Van Vliet's best work. The instrumentals in particular impress me very much: there's a piece for bass and electric guitar called 'Peon', which isn't as dissonant as the other stuff here, but still features an amazingly untrivial set of melodies, played in perfect sync by the two instruments; 'One Red Rose That I Mean', a solo for electric guitar, doesn't sound too different, but is also beautiful. 'Japan On A Dishpan' is a full band piece, and it's some of that thrilling, manic, exhilarating songs with a level of energy that's hard to find on <strong>Trout Mask Replica</strong>.</p>

<p>The vocal tracks feature pretty much the same vocal work present on the previous album; like I said, it's mainly the instrumentation and the approach that change. This means we have <em>serious</em> songs, like the glorious 'Ballerin' Plain', in which Beefheart's strange evocations alternate with unusual instrumental breaks. There's a particular moment in which the guitar and the xylophone play the same tricky, twisted melody in perfect unison. There's also the funny 'Woe-Is-Uh-Me-Bop', featuring a lighthearted vocal delivery and a groovy, quite catchy rhythm. This isn't the only time when the band settles for a more "normal" sounding rhythm. For example, 'The Smithsonian Institute Blues' is as close as they can get to a straightforward rock song, with only a slightly strange guitar riff driving it forwards. There's also the hybrid quasi-jazz raving of 'I Love You, You Big Dummy', with Captain Beefheart contributing some harmonica along with his usual vocal works. That song is fun, but unfortunately goes for way too long based only on repetition, and just loses its power as it reaches the end.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the looser musicmaking remains, like in the dense 'Doctor Dark', and on 'Flash Gordon's Ape', which is filled with wicked "harmonies" of shrieking brass instruments. 'Space Age Couple' has a rhythm which almost sounds like some sort of deranged samba, and that kind of frenzied rhythm is also present on the title track, alternated with some blues ravings over a weird, syncopated band work. Other songs feature mainly Captain Beefheart's lyrical and vocal meanderings, like the short 'Petrified Forest', the unusually quiet 'The Buggy Boogie Woogie' and on the gorgeous 'The Clouds Are Full Of Wine (Not Whiskey Or Rye)', in which his beautifully recited wordplays are bookended by a pair of interesting instrumental breaks (one of them bringing back the vibes/guitar combo, even more impressive this time around). This might have been an attempt at making a more focused, balanced record, and you know, Captain Beefheart deserves kudos for that, because he <em>did</em> reach his goal, if that's the case. It's an impressive, beautiful record in its own right, but it doesn't produce the smashing result of <strong>Trout Mask Replica</strong>, which isn't at all such a mean feat. In fact, this is a way more "safe" way to get into Beefheart's music, which might appeal to those who aren't so used to avantgarde - and it will sound utterly bizarre, in that case.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - There are just a few things here that don't <em>really</em> entertain me so much.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - This is serious art. And... well, it <em>is</em> serious art.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Sounds a bit pale in comparison with <strong>Trout Mask Replica</strong>, and that means "incredibly creative".<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/15</strong></big> - A lot of gorgeous, intriguing music to be found here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - See, it's that density that bugs me a little.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p>Jakers! The Adventures Of <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mailey Winks</a></p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Bob Dylan</h2>

<h2 id="freewheelin">The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan (1967)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Rainy Day Women #12 &amp; #35 ++</span></li>
  <li>Pledging My Time <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Visions Of Johanna ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">One Of Us Must Know (Sooner Or Later) ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">I Want You ++</span></li>
  <li>Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Leopard Skin Pill-Box Hat <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Just Like A Woman</li>
  <li>Most Likely You'll Go Your Way And I Go Mine <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Temporarily Like Achilles</li>
  <li>Absolutely Sweet Marie <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">4th Time Around ++</span></li>
  <li>Obviously 5 Believers <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands ++</span></li>
</ol>



<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - You know, I can't pretend this is the <em>album of my life</em>.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Heresy?! Well, not quite... It's just that some things Bob says here just pass right through me, or almost. I won't pretend I understand it all.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Um... I'm not sure how much new ground Bob was breaking here, in comparison with <strong>Highway 61 Revisited</strong>, but isn't this a landmark?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Won't deny that.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Too long, perhaps? Or it just gets "stuck" a few too many times?
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/14.png" alt="14" />
</p>

<p>Ideas? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail</a>!</p>

<h2 id="blonde">Blonde On Blonde (1967)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Rainy Day Women #12 &amp; #35 ++</span></li>
  <li>Pledging My Time <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Visions Of Johanna ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">One Of Us Must Know (Sooner Or Later) ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">I Want You ++</span></li>
  <li>Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Leopard Skin Pill-Box Hat <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Just Like A Woman</li>
  <li>Most Likely You'll Go Your Way And I Go Mine <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Temporarily Like Achilles</li>
  <li>Absolutely Sweet Marie <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">4th Time Around ++</span></li>
  <li>Obviously 5 Believers <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands ++</span></li>
</ol>



<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - You know, I can't pretend this is the <em>album of my life</em>.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Heresy?! Well, not quite... It's just that some things Bob says here just pass right through me, or almost. I won't pretend I understand it all.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Um... I'm not sure how much new ground Bob was breaking here, in comparison with <strong>Highway 61 Revisited</strong>, but isn't this a landmark?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Won't deny that.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Too long, perhaps? Or it just gets "stuck" a few too many times?
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/14.png" alt="14" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:MatthewByrd@hotmail.com">Matt (the great) Byrd</a> (January 23, 2005):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Well, this is the first time I've been here, good reviews! ;-D! But, I gotta say, I disagree with you here on at least one point. Bob Dylan is possibly THE musical(or lyrical) innovator of the rock era, especially(and possibly only) in the mid 60's. He was one of the first to plug in his guitar-he got booed off stage for it, wrote fire-breathing political protests and dabbled(or practically invented) in surreal lyrics. Bob was one, if not the biggest inffluence on other great acts like the Beatles, the Byrds and Jimi Hendrix.  His influences on them are, of course, obvious. I think <strong>Blonde On Blonde</strong> is the fist double-album to be released........ it may have been <strong>Freak Out!</strong> by ANOTHER great revolutionizer-Frank Zappa. I can never remember which one came first.  His musical approaches are probably rarely considered original (except the whole electric guitar thing) but that's only part of the picture. It's hard for me to imagine what <strong>Rubber Soul</strong> would have sounded like without Bob Dylan. I also think it's a pretty solid album........ but that's relative and that's why there are fine record review sites like this one all over the place.</p>

<p><span class="edNote">[editor's note: Damn, that's why I'm so frightened of reviewing Bob Dylan, because I always end up ignoring important things about the man. But then again, everybody out there says the man was awfully revolutionary and influential, so I always feel a bit redundant when I say it. But, for the information of my dear readers, Mr. Byrd is absolutely correct in everything he said, and I'm sorry if I ever sounded like I disdained Dylan's importance. The man is awesome, and I'm just not familliar with him, that's all. But still, I think <strong>Blonde On Blonde</strong> is great, so maybe that redeems me a little. :) And by the way, <strong>Blonde On Blonde</strong> WAS the first double-album of rock history. <strong>Freak Out!</strong> came out a few months (or a few weeks?) later. Thanks a lot for the comment, Matt.]</span></p>
</div>

<p>Ideas? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail</a>!</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">The Rolling Stones</h2>

<h2 id="bleed">Let It Bleed (1969)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Gimme Shelter</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Gimme Shelter ++</span></li>
  <li>Love In Vain</li>
  <li>Country Honk</li>
  <li>Live With Me</li>
  <li>Let It Bleed</li>
  <li>Midnight Rambler <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>You Got The Silver</li>
  <li><span class="good">Monkey Man ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">You Can't Always Get What You Want &times;&times;</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Not <em>this</em> is a classic case of an album going <em>completely</em> against my personal taste. I am aware of its classic status (how couldn't I be?), and I am aware of all people who say it's brilliant, the Stones' best, but seriously... if this is the best the Stones could offer me, I might not want to ever listen to a Stones album again. This situation might change, and it <em>will</em> change. Soon. But for now, I can truly and frankly state my opinion that I <em>don't</em> like this record. And it isn't that "it's a great album, but I don't like it that much". No, I <em>truly</em> don't like this record.</p>

<p>Now, I am sane enough to say that there <em>are</em> great things about this record. The deal is, there is good stuff, there is bad stuff, but most of this stuff just sits there. There is the "experimentation", there are the fiddles and the saxes and the mandolins and the lyrics and the grooves and blah blah blah. But <em>what is the damn point</em>? How can I enjoy sounds like 'Live With Me', that just sit there and do absolutely <em>nothing</em> in particular? You know, I thought that when a song should <em>have</em> something while it's going on: a guitar riff, nifty instrumentation, a remarkable vocal line... This song has none. The nifty bass line at the beginning only states its presence in the beginning. Come on! What's the deal with <em>that</em>? Of course I can enjoy the groove, but the groove is <em>exactly the same</em> as the groove of 'Satisfaction', a magnificent song that I wholeheartedly love. So what? A similar fate haunts the title track. Okay, so there <em>is</em> a vocal line, but it's repeated <em>ad nauseum</em>, and the song goes forever. Come on, if songs like those define the Stones, they I <em>definitely</em> don't want them. Either I am expecting too much, with my Jarre and Pink Floyd laden mind, but I don't think so. And what's worse: this is not the only song where the same line is repeated over and over. The closer, 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' goes on for <em>seven</em> minutes, and it relies solely upon the <em>same</em> little theme. Come on! I could tolerate it like that, but there are those <em>hideous, HIDEOUS</em> choirs that absolutely annihilate the listening experience, to me. Seriously. Look: there is <em>one</em> vocal line on the song. Do you agree with me that this is totally pathetic? Please, do agree with me. If you don't, it's no wonder our music world is so stuffed with dreck.</p>

<p>Other songs also fall flat on my face. 'Country Honk' sounded delightfully funny the first times around, but it <em>totally</em> lost its appeal later on. And the ballads don't particularily stand out. 'Love In Vain' could have been fairly beautiful, if Mick Jagger didn't employ such ugly vocals, and Keith Richard's 'You Got The Silver' stands nowhere above the definition of "filler". At least, those aren't songs that make me <em>annoyed</em> like the others I mentioned. They're just there, and I don't mind 'em. But... heck, more than half of the album is completely discarded already.</p>

<p><em>Fortunately</em>, the highlights on the album are <em>so</em> good that they make the record worth owning. The opener, 'Gimme Shelter', is a classic and a classic it shall remain. Keith's guitar absolutely <em>makes</em> the song, with all those spooky lines going on, and there is that <em>stomping</em> break they do in the chorus, that gives me the chills. The build up at the beginning, Mick's singing, the guitar... the guitar! All highlights. I'm not even bothered by the high-pitched vocals. Yep, if the song wasn't so damn brilliant, I would fearlessly proclaim that the female vocals are <em>horrible</em>. But I won't. I'm satisfied. Less brilliant, but brilliant nonetheless, are two songs on side B: 'Midnight Rambler' is delightfully violent and thrilling, with the band setting a perfect nightish vibe, and laying some cool guitar and harmonica interaction. For seven minutes! And there are lots of build ups and build downs through the song, reaching a fast instrumental break, a slow part with some <em>LOUD</em> chords, and the fast finale, winding up the song nicely. The second highlight is the gorgeous, funky rocker 'Monkey Man'. I'm particularily pleased by the guitars and the pianos, and Mick's vocal ramblings at the end are worth mention. It's a good case of the entire band sticking together and delivering a tight, <em>entertaining</em> performance, and that is much, much more than what I can say about most songs here.</p>

<p>Yeah, those three songs are all I can salvage from the album, but I tells ya: they're <em>magnificent</em>. If <em>those</em> songs define the Stones, then I fully accept and respect them. It's just that the rest of the album depresses me so much. But forget it. You probably understand about the Stones better than me, so screw it. Still, I give the album a rating of <em>5</em>, without remorse.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>5/10</strong></big>  - 'Gimme Shelter' is so fucking good it's enough to guarantee four or five points here.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>4/10</strong></big>  - More or less the same as above, I mean, 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' is so horrible it cuts six or seven points on here already.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>6/10</strong></big>  - I don't care about experimentation. I've heard better stuff than this. I'd take Queen over this any day of the year.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>6/10</strong></big>  - Uhh... I don't know what is the richess on here. There's hardly a melody or, heck, <em>anything</em>.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>3/10</strong></big>  - Blargh.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 4.8 = <strong class="grade">5</strong>
</p>

<p>Death threats? Rants? Complaints? Send your <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">comments</a> right now.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="fingers">Sticky Fingers (1971)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Wild Horses</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Brown Sugar ++</span></li>
  <li>Sway <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Wild Horses ++</span></li>
  <li>Can't You Hear Me Knocking <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>You Gotta Move <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Bitch ++</span></li>
  <li>I Got The Blues</li>
  <li>Sister Morphine <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Dead Flowers <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Moonlight Mile <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Well! Who would have guessed? This is the album that finally made me understand why people love the Rolling Stones so much. If <strong>Let It Bleed</strong> made the Stones fall in my list of priorities, then this one made them rise pretty fast! This album... just... just rules. It's great! To me, it sounds like the band wasn't worried with making their music refined, elaborate, "intelligent", "diverse" and all that crap. They just focused in making <em>good music</em>, and not that stuff like 'Live With Me', 'Country Honk' and 'You Got The Silver', that's simply not entertaining at all - not to mention 'You Can't Always Get What You Want', that's just stupid, and not in a good way. You won't find songs like that here. These songs are great! At least, all of them got <em>something</em> going, and don't lose their impact by the second or third listen. Maybe none of these songs rise up to the level of 'Gimme Shelter', but at least, the songs are more consistently good.</p>

<p>And the fact is that, this time around, the band <em>is</em> full of energy, instead of pretending to be. There is no intention in making it seem to be what it isn't. Remember 'Love In Vain'? The Country-Blues ballad? Let's face it: at the core, it's just an ok, nice ballad. But they weren't satisfied with that, so they just had to add that <big><big>GORGEOUS</big></big> slide guitar, that <big><big>MOVING</big></big> vocal performance, and that <big><big>TEAR-INDUCING</big></big> mandolin that simply <big><big>DO NOT</big></big> achieve their goals. But there's none of that stuff in here. Instead, you have 'Wild Horses', a <em>stunningly gorgeous</em> and touching ballad, that comes across perfectly naturally, and thus completely strikes me in the forehead. Great song! My favourite on the album, in fact.</p>

<p>Alright, alright, maybe there <em>is</em> one spot that falls kind of flat here: 'I Got The Blues' is that kind of melancholic, self-pitying Blues song with a slooow guitar arpeggio, loud brasses and a Hammond organ solo. But it's not really that beautiful, and Mick Jagger overdoes his "Soul" singing. But at least, it doesn't try to go through time as an absolute emotional classic, and that's fine by me. It's a fine Blues performance, and if Mick overdoes his trick, at least, it sounds nicer than the inadequate whining on 'Love In Vain'. And what should I care? There are much nicer ballads here, as well. 'Dead Flowers' is <em>fine, fine</em> Country music: the kind of song that doesn't yell <big><big>"LOOK AT ME, I'M COUNTRY MUSIC!!</big></big> in your face, and is catchy and cute... errr, well, not exactly cute. The lyrics, in fact, are total brilliance. But that's for later. And 'Moonlight Mile' might be a little too "self-awarely beautiful" as a moving, grandiose album closer, but at least, it also comes across naturally. It is beautiful, and doesn't have only one single good melody line repeated in its entirety.</p>

<p>And, ooh, I didn't even start talking about the hard rocking tracks. Everybody knows 'Brown Sugar', with the "block chord" riff welcoming you and instantly sticking to your brain for eternity, the smutty lyrics, catchy hooks and all. It's an exciting rock 'n' roll performance, and the Stones are good in this. Aren't they the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world, or something? 'Brown Sugar' states that very well. 'Bitch' has an even catchier riff, and comes across as a steamy, exciting performance, in spite of the less clever lyrics. At least, the song ends before it starts to repeat itself. On a slower note, you have the stomping, awesome 'Sway', that just totally does the trick to me - counting even with an awesome solo by Mick Taylor in the end! And if that's not enough to you, the furious 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking' features a long, exciting and unstoppable groove with saxophones and guitars and what more. Man, <em>this</em> is the good stuff.</p>

<p>Yep. You even have oddities like 'You Gotta Move', a Blues cover so weird and so twisted, it's just totally amazing. At times, the band sounds like they are trying to make the most obnoxious sounds possible with that acoustic guitar tone, the backing vocals and the drums, but it comes across as just totally entertaining. And there is 'Sister Morphine', a frightening tale of drug addiction with Mick doing a really good job, and Ry Cooder extracting some loud, alarming sounds of his guitar. And even though it starts to repeat itself a little halfway through, it has a great, angry rhythm. And <em>that</em> is what I call a great Seventies rock album. This is raw, weary, and fascinating rock 'n' roll music. When I'm really in a head-bangy mood, I'll put this one, and even have ballads like 'Wild Horses' as a magnificent bonus. Yeah! Shame that they just <em>had</em> to put on that sickening album cover. Come on, I know they were trying to be a bit dirtier than before, with their own record label giving them much more freedom, but... Gee, I'm sure they could have made the point a bit more cleverly. Even the lavatory on <strong>Beggar's Banquet</strong> is way more cool.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Are there below-average moments in this album? I <em>don't care</em>.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Okay, okay, not all of this is <em>totally</em> effective ('I Got The Blues'?).<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Sweet rock 'n' roll music... Not too revolutionary, but definitely original.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Hell yeah! Lots of catchy moments, and the songs sure sound like they were written.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Not a perfect flow, but a very solid selection of tracks.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.4 = <strong class="grade">9.5</strong>
</p>

<p>You Gotta <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail</a>.</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">The Who</h2>

<h2 id="out">The Who Sell Out (1967)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>I Can See For Miles</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Armenia, City In The Sky ++</span></li>
  <li>Heinz Baked Beans</li>
  <li>Mary-Anne With The Shaky Hands</li>
  <li>Odorono</li>
  <li>Tattoo <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Our Love Was <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">I Can See For Miles ++</span></li>
  <li>I Can't Reach You <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Medac</li>
  <li>Relax</li>
  <li>Silas Stingy</li>
  <li>Sunrise <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Rael</li>
</ol>

<p>Yeah, yeah. Say whatever you say. I <em>learned</em> to enjoy the record the way it is supposed to be enjoyed. Now, this album might work as a proof that many "classic rock" albums need to be listened to several times before being given a final veredict... except for <strong>Let It Bleed</strong>, of course. But this one is one of those. Maybe it happens that the album's loose structure <em>shouldn't</em> grab you on the first times around because, well, it <em>doesn't</em>. Let's face it: there are <em>very</em> few spots on here that hit you in the head on first listen. I can list one, maybe two tracks on here whose effect is <em>immediate</em>. The rest of the album, you have to grab it for yourself. And, believe me or not, the rest is just as tasty, but in a different way.</p>

<p>Lessee, the first side of the album is just flawless. Here is where we'll find the timeless classics: the most obvious one is 'I Can See For Miles', of course, and it <em>is</em> a classic for a reason. This is a song that must be listened to <em>loudly</em>, or else, you just won't get it. The <em>pumping</em> rhythm section is something unique, and exciting in some unexplainable way, and the melodies going around deserve more than attention. The harmonised chorus, the guitar "solo", the modulation at the end... All little details that make the song <em>more</em> than just a hard rock song. Timeless and brilliant. The only other rocker in this side of the album is the opener, 'Armenia, City In The Sky', and it's a rather groovy one. This time, the rhythm section is constantly stumbling around the reversed brass-like noises and guitars, the strange vocals, and the unforgettable hook in the chorus. Great singalong.</p>

<p>Now, inbetween those bookmarks... what do we have? Well, aside from the songs, you will listen to all sorts of joke commercials and radio jingles because... well, because that's the idea of the album - to sound like a radio broadcast. Man, those jingles are <em>creepy</em>! Is that the kind of stuff people heard on the radio in the 60's? Man, that's a scary thought. Still, if you give the album a chance, you'll learn to enjoy the fake commercials just as much as the musical content itself. The jokes range from tiny commercials squeezed in between the songs (sometimes made up, like the hilarious "PREMI&Egrave;RE DRUMS! PREMI&Egrave;RE DRUMS!!" one, sometimes real, like those before 'I Can See For Miles'), to little one-minute jingles, like 'Heinz Baked Beans', and even a full-fledged <em>song</em> that happens to be a commercial, and a funny one: 'Odorono'. What a <em>great</em> way to advertise deodorant (I'm being sarcastic, by the way). Plus, the song itself is quite cute and catchy. Wicked idea!</p>

<p>But the songs themselves won't let you down at all. The beautiful love ballad 'Our Love Was', the funny, folksy 'Mary-Anne With The Shaky Hands' (guess <em>why</em> they are shaky, eh? "What they've done to her man, those sha-a-a-a-a-a-ky ha-a-a-nds"?) to the absolutely wonderful "ringing-guitar-line" driven 'Tattoo', these are all great songs. You'll just have to learn to enjoy them. If you want <em>more</em> rock'n'roll, you'll have to wait for side B... which, frankly, isn't as good. 'Relax' is really an organ-driven pseudo-rocker that doesn't stand out at all, and that organ sounds really like a cheap gimmick. Finally, 'Rael' has never made an impression on me. It does have some nice themes, but... well, it's just not memorable, and I fail to see the <em>point</em> of the song. Finally, John's 'Silas Stingy' is absolutely irritating because of the friggin' chorus that's repeated a million times every 10th second. And that's a shame, because the song itself is not bad.</p>

<p>Fortunately, they still deliver a few good tracks on here. 'Medac' is another funny 1-minute jingle that marks the moment when the radio concept is <em>absolutely over</em>. <em>Why?</em> Were they unable to keep it on? I dunno. Fortunately, 'I Can't Reach You' is a helluva beautiful pop tune, and 'Sunrise' is a surprisingly beautiful, vulnerable acoustic-guitar ballad. After all, the album <em>is</em> enjoyable, and deserves a high grade. But it <em>is</em> flawed, and I will never be able to rank it as a "masterpiece", even if it's asl close to a "masterpiece" as it could possibly be. Buy the album, anyway.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - The bad spots aren't enough to stain the album so badly. Plus, the band knows how to make <em>really</em> good stuff.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - When they rock, they <em>rock</em>. When they want to lift me up, they <em>do</em>. But sometimes, they kinda screw it up.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Can't deny <em>that</em>.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - The songwriting can be kinda lacklustre sometimes.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - The immaculate consistency of side A is kinda screwed up on side B, but... well, no big shakes.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.4 = <strong class="grade">8.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Suggestions? Rants? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me right away</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="tommy">Tommy (1969)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Sparks</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Overture ++</span></li>
  <li>It's A Boy</li>
  <li>1921 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Amazing Journey <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Sparks ++</span></li>
  <li>Eyesight To The Blind</li>
  <li>Christmas</li>
  <li>Cousin Kevin</li>
  <li>The Acid Queen <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Underture</li>
  <li>Do You Think It's Alright?</li>
  <li>Fiddle About</li>
  <li>Pinball Wizard <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>There's A Doctor I've Found</li>
  <li>Go To The Mirror, Boy <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Tommy, Can You Hear Me?</li>
  <li>Smash The Mirror</li>
  <li>Sensation</li>
  <li>Miracle Cure</li>
  <li>Sally Simpson <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>I'm Free <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Welcome</li>
  <li>Tommy's Holiday Camp</li>
  <li><span class="good">We're Not Gonna Take It ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Oh, man, this album... I must admit that I'm not World's Biggest Fan of Tommy's <strong>The Who</strong>, but it isn't very hard to explain why. I just happen not to like albums that <em>big</em>. I'm not talking about "long", I'm talking about "big". This is a rock opera, you see. These two discs serve to tell one single tale, that you might be tired to hear about. Okay, I won't reproduce the "story" here again, but I will say that it's rather unfair when people say the story is stupid, silly, meaningless, with so much venom. You know, I've heard stories <em>far</em> wackier than this one, and the idea of a person that can't see <em>nothing</em> but his reflection on a mirror does have some faint significance on it. Dontcha think?</p>

<p>Aside from that, the song is all based on acoustic guitar. <em>All</em> based on acoustic guitar. There is a bit of electric guitar, but it's not often. The acoustic <em>dominates</em> the album, and I have to say that the album sounds a bit samey to me. Pete wrote some <em>magnificent</em> themes for his work, and true to Opera tradition, these themes keep coming up everywhere, under different arrangements and set ups. I hate to sound like an idiot here... but these reprises <em>do</em> annoy me a little. Not just because of their repetitiveness, but also for the <em>way</em> they are used. The "Tommy, can you hear me?" shouts on 'Christmas' do irritate me, and the "See me, feel me, touch me, heal me" breaks on 'Go To The Mirror, Boy' kinda spoil an otherwise immaculate song. But, like I said, Pete brings some excellent themes to the album. And many of the songs are simple awesome. Since there are <em>twenty-four</em> of them here, it's useless to list them one by one, but some deserve mention, anyway.</p>

<p>... Okay, look, I haven't got <em>the slightest will</em> to write this <strong>Tommy</strong> review, because <em>every single damn thing that has to be said about it</em> has been said already! What's the point? What's the point in going around trying to discuss the short "links" in between the bigger songs, mentioning the 'Overture' as being great and the 'Underture' as being bad, talking about the guitar lines... when it's all been done already? I have already said that I'm not the biggest fan of the album, haven't I? I mean, this is not an album that I would listen to everyday. There <em>is</em> a lot of good stuff, and the first record is really a wonderful experience. Songs like the kickarse 'Overture', '1921', the 'Amazing Journey' / 'Sparks' combo, 'The Acid Queen' are bloody classics, and hey... I like 'Underture'! Sure it's lengthy and monotonous, but it has a very strange, hypnotising atmosphere to it. It's very vague and full of air, at times. Weird.</p>

<p>But I also get the sense that it gets way too heavy on the story. But then again, it <em>is</em> a Rock Opera, and it would have to get heavy on the story, eventually. Also, it's the <em>first</em> rock opera that goes for more than one hour, and it <em>is</em> a revolutionary breakthrough (and this <em>is</em> a redundant redundancy), so it <em>has</em> to give itself a bit of importance. And I can only understand it. But, when I'm in search of some <em>musical</em> experience, <strong>Tommy</strong> isn't the first thing I would look at - this is the same fate that haunts <strong>The Wall</strong>, you know! By the way, why so many double-albums lose me on the second disc? It is the same thing with <strong>The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway</strong>! Damn.</p>

<p>Still, this is an album you <em>have</em> to have, if only to witness The Who doing something <em>really</em> artsy. Besides, the guitars sound <em>great</em> through the album. <em>And</em>, many of these songs are <em>definitive</em> classics. 'Pinball Wizard', 'Go To The Mirror, Boy', 'We're Not Gonna Take It', all absolute classics. Even some of the "filler", like 'Tommy, Can You Hear Me?' is sickeningly cute. And hey, I <em>love</em> 'Sally Simpson'! Wouldn't it be cool if, for some reason, Pete decided to change the characters' names from "Tommy" to "Fernie", and from "Sally" to "Lisa"? Man, that would be the ultimate cool thing! Also, I never had anything against the often maligned 'Welcome'... Okay, it might be a bit dull, but it's okay. Also, 'Fiddle About' was written by <em>JOHN ENTWISTLE</em>, hear that, you stinking Pete Townshend hating newbies? Keep that in mind. The Who fans know what I'm talking about.</p>

<p>And please, don't come with those fiery e-mails with "your a moron <strong>tommy</strong> is great how can you dislike it? your stupid get a life", because I <em>do</em> think <strong>Tommy</strong> is great, and I give it a <em>nine</em>. I just don't give it a nine and a half because... because of personal taste, why, goddamit! Deal with it. You can like the album as much as I do. If you love it, fine, and I will wholeheartedly understand you. But there <em>is</em> something between the "love it" people and the "hate it" people, you know.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Like I said, it ain't perfect, but I don't mind it.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Uh, er... well, Roger's singing is very powerful, and the minimalist production makes it even more 'intimate'.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Well, well, well.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Aside from a few spots, there's always something cool going on.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Not the most cohesive album in the world, but it could have been <em>far</em> worse.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.2 = <strong class="grade">9</strong>
</p>

<p>Raves? Rants? Come in the Amazing Journey of <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">sending your comments</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="next">Who's Next (1971)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Won't Get Fooled Again</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Baba O'Riley ++</span></li>
  <li>Bargain <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Love Ain't For Keeping</li>
  <li>My Wife <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Song Is Over</li>
  <li>Gettin' In Tune</li>
  <li>Goin' Mobile</li>
  <li>Behind Blue Eyes <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Won't Get Fooled Again ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Ah, well, this album. I might be wrong, but there are <em>lots</em> of mixed feelings about the songs in this album. Most people agree that the tracks bookending it are classics, but in between them, there is <em>such</em> a hodgepodge of "stuff", that I think no two people have the same opinions of which tracks are good and whick tracks aren't. Just check out the other reviews sites and you'll see what I'm talking about here. One other thing: if you expect me to go on for ages about the <strong>Lifehouse</strong> thing, go to Hell. Enough people have told this history, and I won't reproduce it. Go look somewhere else.</p>

<p>But yes, this album is a good one. I won't go up and proclaim the album is a <em>classic</em> because... well, it ain't a <em>classic</em> in the same way <strong>Tommy</strong> or <strong>Quadrophenia</strong> is. It's a nice, mixed little album, that's for sure, and absolutely mandatory for people who like The Who: firstly because there are a couple of classics on here that you can't live without; secondly, because it finally features Roger as the <em>awesome</em> singer that everyone knows and loves; and thirdly because this is a <em>new</em> The Who. This is one of the first albums in history that uses synthesizers so heavily. And Pete Townshend was <em>very</em> clever in the use of synthesizers. They aren't just there to give a "touch" to the overall band's sound. No. The synths are used as an independent unit, and they are responsible for some absolutely unforgettable sounds on here. The best example is, of course, the opening 'Baba O'Riley', that kicks off the album with an awesome, shiver-inducing synth loop. And, and the song, as a whole, is an indisputable classic. The deadly simple riff bangs on your head, all the vocal lines, the song development, and the great fiddle-driven finale are moments that have to be witnessed by every human being in existence. Likewise, the closer 'Won't Get Fooled Again' also features synth loops, but this time, the song is a fast, guitar-laden rocker that goes for 8-minutes, and I wouldn't remove a single second off of it. It sounds anthemic at parts, downright rocking at others, and jaw-droppingly awesome at others, like when Roger screams the immortal "yeeeeeaahh" at the end. "Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss" - great candidate for <em>Best Album Closing Line Ever</em>.</p>

<p>After that, I guess choosing favourite songs is strictly a question of personal taste. I, personally, like all songs. Some more, some less. But there ain't any song that I'd consider <em>below-average</em>. The lightweight, silly fun of 'Goin' Mobile' might annoy some people, but it never annoyed me. And there are several <em>details</em> on these songs - yes, <em>details</em> - that turn some people off. It's not the <em>songs</em> themselves, you know. The anthemicness of 'The Song Is Over' might get on the nerves of some people: me, I'm impressed by those <em>beautiful</em> verses, and the cool crescendos. Some people think 'Gettin' In Tune' goes absolutely nowhere: it does so, but I enjoy it. Many people complain that 'Love Ain't For Keeping' is way too short. I actually <em>like</em> it the way it is, as a tasteful, cute musical link. If it went longer than that, it would ramble on too much. Heck, how many Beatles songs don't even go up to 2 minutes, and how many people do you see complaining that they're too short (me excluded)? Also, people say that John's vocals in 'My Wife' are hardly audible - they are, but heck, is that a cool, groovy song. I love it!</p>

<p>But then, there are two songs on here that most people tend to agree over: 'Bargain' is a truly gorgeous rocker, with awesome vocals by Roger, and those cool drum rolls and crescendos. Finally, 'Behind Blue Eyes' is a wonderful, scary ballad with a great, rocking interlude. But it's that acoustic guitars and those harmonies that do the trick, for me. And please, <em>DON'T</em> mention the horrid Limp Bizkit cover, or else I'll finally go totally mad. Let's stick to The Who's original, instead. Yeah, this is a record you should own, if you're a fan of true Rock music. Controversial, yeah, but we need a little controversy sometimes. And I prefer having a little controversy over The Who rather than over Eminem, that's for sure.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Pretty much a 9, yeah.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Dunno what to say here.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - The use of synthesizers is quite innovative, but this is The Who's style, 100% recognisable.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Very few spots are kinda bland.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - I can complain a little about the song flow, though.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.8 = <strong class="grade">9</strong>
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (July 18, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>When I first listened to this album, I thought The Who were a straight rock band, like the songs on <strong>Live at Leeds</strong>. OK, so they had done <strong>Tommy</strong> which I also love, but I thought they just did loud, heavy stuff. I certainly didn't expect them to come up with this album, and album which makes my top 5 albums of all time ahead of some absolutely classic albums by Mike Oldfield, Pink Floyd and Yes. This is the Who's masterpiece, an absolute gem of an album and one of the greatest works of art of all. This album does what very few others could dream of: I like every single song here. EVERY SINGLE SONG. Nothing that I'm even impartial to, I'm rocking all through this disc. That in itself makes it a classic.</p>

<p>I wonder how many who fans were confused when they started the album and were hit by the funny synth at the start of 'Baba O'Riley'? And then a piano? This is an interesting start for a rock band like The Who? I'm sure all their worries were dispelled by Keith Moon thundering in on the drums. Moonie has to be the best drummer of all time, I'm sure of that, and this, as well as 'Bargain', shows you why. Bargain in particular is simply one of the best straight rock songs I've ever heard. Loud heavy stuff has to be really good for me to like it. This is really really really good. Then into 'Love Ain't for Keeping'. I'm not quite sure whan I love about this song, but I do. 'My Wife' is also a great rocker. 'Song is Over' and 'Getting in Tune' may be a slight lowering of the quility of music, but when I'm in the mood they are both great. 'Going Mobile' maybe doesn't quite suit the mood of the album, but still it's good fun. John Entwhistle's bass is amazing, and I love the synth/guitar solo by Pete.</p>

<p>Now the album really comes alive. 'Behind Blue Eyes'. Wow. Everything about this song is perfect. Pete's haunting acoustic riff, Roger's beautiful vocals, John's amazing bass (just like Moon was the best drummer in the world, John was the best bassist. What other bassist would dream of doing something like this?). And then, the song explodes. Pete's guitar screams into life, and Moon just goes absolutely wild. This is drumming at it's peak. On the Classic Albums DVD of <strong>Who's Next</strong> they play this section with just Moon's drums and Roger's vocals, and it still rocks! The rest of the band seems almost superfluous. 'Won't Get Fooled Again' is a fitting end to this album. This is The Who doing what the Who love to do, and even though it isn't the best song on the album is still is a classic. All of them are in their element and give a fine performance, but the highlight is that synth solo. It's just so detailed, ever changing, it's like a fractal in musical form. I'm sure there's no-one alive who could acutally write out the music for that synth. Just wonderful, another thing that makes this album so unique and so good.</p>

<p>The strength of The Who is that all four of them were brilliant at what they do. You'll never find a rock vocalist better than Roger. Pete is a fine guitarist and an inspired lyricist. And what other band could claim to have the best drummer and bassist of all time? When musicians of this quality get together, great music is often produced. When musicians of this quality are all performing at their absolute peak while still working as a team, the result is unforgettable. The result is this. 9.5 out of 10. It dosen't get much better than this.</p>
</div>

<p>Raves? Ideas? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send them in</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="quadrophenia" class="best">Quadrophenia (1973)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Too difficult, I'll pass.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>I Am The Sea</li>
  <li>The Real Me <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Quadrophenia ++</span></li>
  <li>Cut My Hair <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Punk And The Godfather ++</span></li>
  <li>I'm One <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Dirty Jobs</li>
  <li>Helpless Dancer</li>
  <li>Is It In My Head?</li>
  <li>I've Had Enough <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">5:15 ++</span></li>
  <li>Sea And Sand <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Drowned</li>
  <li>Bell Boy <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Dr. Jimmy ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Rock ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Love, Reign O'er Me ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>If one Rock Opera is not enough, how about <em>two</em> of them? Yup, this is another double-album Rock Opera story telling concept album thang. But believe me: it <em>hardly</em> has anything to do with <strong>Tommy</strong>, aside from the idea of spreading those few themes all over the album. But then again, that's merely the concept of "Rock Opera", so I'll dare say that this has <em>nothing</em> to do with <strong>Tommy</strong>. Apparently, Pete liked much more the sound they developed with <strong>Who's Next</strong>, synthesizers and all, and decided to stick with it - and even more, to make it <em>more</em> overblown and full, adding lots of piano, brass sections, barrages of synths, etc. The guitar is still there, but it is used more for lead rather than the barrages of riffage we'd get from 'I Can See For Miles'. Needless to say, the idea of "guitarfest" of <strong>Tommy</strong> is completely obliterated here.</p>

<p>Indeed, the sound is <em>so</em> big, that many people just can't get into the album because it's so overblown. And I <em>will</em> admit: the album <em>is</em> overblown. But how couldn't it be? That's the point! Besides, these songs are great. <em>Great</em>. Pete has taken the ultimate leap-forward as far as songwriting and arrangement are concerned, and it <em>shows</em> on here. Eighty-five minutes of first rate music by one of World's finest bands ever, and all is nicely tied up by an angsty, down-to-Earth history. Yeah, the history is pretty much your everyday teenage angst, but let me tell you: <em>NOBODY</em> can handle teenage angst as well as Pete Townshend. At least, that's what I can say after listening to <strong>Quadrophenia</strong>: Jimmy is a rock 'n' roller; Jimmy uses drugs; Jimmy is kicked out of home; Jimmy has to apply to stinky jobs; Jimmy gets sick of the world; Jimmy tries to kill himself. Does he kill himself? I guess that is one of those mysteries that shall never have a definitive answer. The only "bizarre" element of the album is Jimmy's multiple personality. The "concept" of the album originated from the Quadrophonic sound system that The Who were using by the time, and Pete had the idea to combine that with the idea of quadruple personality, thus creating "Quadrophenia". In the moments Jimmy takes the pills, he starts developing those personalities, that are supposed to reflect the personalities of the four members of the band - and predictably enough, each character has a musical theme of his own. These four themes are introduced on the SFX intro 'I Am The Sea', developed through the album, and merged together in the two instrumentals, the title track and 'The Rock'.</p>

<p>And yes, the themes themselves rule. But it's not the "themes" that make the album so spectacular. It is the songs! The aforementioned instrumentals are absolutely superb: brilliantly written, brilliantly performed. Especially the title track. Gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous song. But there are also lighter "ballads", heavier "rockers", some "novelty" stuff... and it all rules! Side A has some of the finest songs on the album. 'The Real Me' is fast and furious, and features Roger growling and yelling like a good The Who lead singer. 'Cut My Hair' is a painfully beautiful "light" ballad, and finally, 'The Punk And The Godfather' is a totally grandiose, majestic rocker with god-like guitar work, and a great vocal and lyrical work. And there's the title track, of course, but I mentioned that one already.</p>

<p>I'll be frank and say that side two and three don't stand up to the heat very well. Side two has some slightly let down songs, like 'The Dirty Jobs' and 'Is It In My Head?' (nothing <em>wrong</em> about those songs, but the melodies employed are just subpar, compared to the rest of the album, 'tis all - no big shakes), but on the other hand, you for the beautiful, short and yet anthemic 'I'm One', and the hilariously angry 'I've Had Enough'. Side three gets... um, a bit monotonous. After the totally kickarse heavy rocker '5:15', you got a heavy rocker in 'Sea And Sand', and then you got a... a heavy rocker in 'Drowned', and then a... er, a... a heavy rocker in 'Bell Boy'. Okay, so those songs all have their distinctions. 'Sea And Sand' has some great lyrics and vocals by John, while 'Drowned' has those groovy pianos and horns. And 'Bell Boy' has the brilliant vocals by Keith Moon, and a funny atmosphere, as well. So, they pass. Yeah, they're a bit hard to swallow the first time around, but with time, they can be appreciated just as much as the best material.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the final side completely saves the album. The operatic values reach their peak on 'Dr Jimmy', combining gorgeous, slower passages, with totally rocking verses and choruses. It's non-stop exciting fury and hot steam, and lead flawlessly into the dramatic closing, with 'The Rock', and one of the most captivating, moving pieces in the history of The Who. 'Love, Reign O'er Me' is a fantastic anthem for <em>love</em>, of all things. And I haven't found such a grandiose, sincere statement about pure <em>love</em> that surpasses that one. Overblown? Well, yes, but if it wasn't overblown, it just wouldn't make sense. This isn't the song to be played in acoustic guitar, making some Bossa-Nova arrangements like some Brazilians do with practically every song ever written (okay, okay, let's drop the regional talk here, but it's true. What's the point of singing a song that does <em>not</em> rely on melody with the sole backing of average guitar strumming? What's the point of sacrificing the arrangements, even in songs where the arrangement is <em>just</em> the most important thing? Jerk off, "artsy" wannabe singers. Jerk off. Okay, I'm finished). This is a gorgeous composition, and it deserves every single piano and synthesizer note it gets. Amazing.</p>

<p>Now, of course, if you're interested in the <em>rocking</em> The Who, better not look here. Got get <strong>Live At Leeds</strong> instead. This is <em>ART ROCK</em>, and if you don't like art rock... Well, you're a moron. But even if you don't like art rock, listening to this album is a <em>must</em>. It will change your life. For better or for worse, but it <em>will</em> change your life. The ultimate artistic statement in Rock music. Of course I like <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong> better, but that's my problem, alright? And for all the people who think it's too "long" or "overblown", know what? You can take only side one and four, and make a single album out of that. <strong>Quadrophenia Lite</strong>! Grab it before it's too late!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Did anyone say 'breathtaking'?<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - It's teenage angst at its full power. Magnificent.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - A bit of controversy here, but I do think it's an unique experience.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Well!<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Well!
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <strong class="ten">10</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? Suggestions? Hate mail? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Use your mail</a>!</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Jethro Tull</h2>

<h2 id="aqualung">Aqualung (1971)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Locomotive Breath</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Aqualung ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Cross-Eyed Mary ++</span></li>
  <li>Cheap Day Return <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Mother Goose ++</span></li>
  <li>Wond'ring Aloud</li>
  <li>Up To Me <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>My God <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Hymn 43</li>
  <li>Slipstream</li>
  <li><span class="good">Locomotive Breath ++</span></li>
  <li>Wind Up <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Most people tend to think of this album as the first "real" Jethro Tull album, and for a reason. For the first time, Ian Anderson managed to combine his ambitions with <em>good</em> music, and produced this hell of an album. It's not the kind of album I'd listen to everyday, but it's a nice place to meet the band. If, in one side, you won't be seeing the band as "wizards of Progressive Rock" as they're normally remembered, you'll get a chance to see the band <em>rocking</em>, and displaying their great sense of songwriting and performance. Yup.</p>

<p>Plus, this is an album that holds a number of Tull <em>classics</em>: the title track, 'Locomotive Breath', 'Cross-Eyed Mary'... you name it. It's all here. Another very distinctive mark of the album is the way it brings two separate "trends" of the band's music: the "electric" trend, and the "acoustic" trend. In a few moments, they are sort of "combined", but for the most part, they are presented as two distinct things, two different sides of the band. I don't know it Ian was trying to deliver some sort of message through this, but then again, I don't care. The album is structured in two different <em>halves</em>, not unlike future releases (like <strong>Broadsword And The Beast</strong>), and the two sides of the record, each represented by their respective opening tracks, tend to focus on social critique ("Aqualung", the first side) and religion ("My God", the second side). Note that I say <em>religion</em> in the sense of Church as an establishment, not in the sense of God and everything. It's obvious that Ian was walking a dangerous line on here, but that's what he wanted to do, anyway.</p>

<p>But the point of the album is not its "concept", after all. I don't review albums based solely on that. The music presented here is great, too! And nope, don't try to put the album on the "Prog rock" cathegory, because it <em>doesn't</em> belong there. This is a rock album, just more ambitious than usual. So, if anything, stick an "Art rock" label on it, and that's that. After all, compositions like 'My God' are willing to stand on the "Art rock" ground, with the slow Blues passages, spiced with guitar and flute solos, alternated with lengthy flute passages, followed by choirs. Yeah, that's the kind of thing you'll find here. But it's really good. Ian throws an impressive flute playing (as usual), and the sung portions are great. Mean riff, mean vocal melody, you know the trick. If you push it <em>really</em> hard, you'll want to say the title track is "Art rock" too, in the way the fast passages are alternated with the slow ones. The song's structure is damn good, and the musical ideas thrown in are some of the best stuff this band had in stock. Bitter singing, speedy guitar solo, awesome, distorted riff... Yeah, <em>that</em> riff. You remember it now, don't you?</p>

<p>The rest of the "rock" material also "rocks". 'Cross-Eyed Mary' is a classic in all respects. Clever chord sequences everywhere, and more of that flute and guitar. The cruel lyrics interact well with the rhythm, and the intro? Wow, spooky thing in the intro. Deserves a listen. 'Hymn 43' is a mid-tempo distorted guitar rocker that would work better, in my humble opinion, as a short interlude. As it is, it tends to ramble on too much, but it's still great. And, of course, there's no way 'Locomotive Breath' can be forgotten. One of the band's most brilliant performances ever, combining Blues and Hard rock in some arse kicking, but classy way. The side closers are also quite great. My favourite parts of 'Wind Up' are the soft, acoustic ones, because it presents a beautiful vocal melody. The rockin' electric parts just duplicate the vocals without the melody. Hmpf. 'Up To Me', though, is an excellent folksy Bluesy flute-driven menacing tune with more of that social commentary. Cool. Some spooky, drunken laughter, too. Cool riff, too.</p>

<p>The acoustic material doesn't fail to entertain me. Some people tend to despise the short, acoustic interludes: 'Cheap-Day Return', 'Wond'ring Aloud', 'Slipstream'... I don't understand why one should hate these songs. They're not exactly memorable, but they're cute. I particularly love the acoustic guitar on the first one. Still, there's some <em>mighty</em> fine, slightly goofy Folk on 'Mother Goose'. Beautiful stuff: Ian's absurdist visions, the flute theme, the guitar passages, everything about the track is very well thought out. That song along is a truly essential part of the album, and if one thing displays the true Folk glory of the band (if there is any), it's 'Mother Goose'. But still, it's neither the acoustic nor the electric stuff alone that makes the album: it's the whole package, anyway! Get the album, you can't pretend to be a fan of Rock music without it. Even if you don't like Tull much, this one is an essential purchase.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Oh, that's certainly not to be denied.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Jethro Tull isn't the meanest rock band ever, nor the most sensitive folk rockers...<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Not the kind of stuff that would overwhelm your mind to the point of melting.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Oh, yeah, that.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - I have heard better in <em>that</em> cathegory.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.6 = <strong class="grade">8.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send them to me</a>, will ya?</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="brick" class="best">Thick As A Brick (1972)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Aaah, so that's what you call an intelligent question?</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Thick As A Brick, part 1 ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Thick As A Brick, part 2 ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Ever since the "apparition" of Prog Rock until 1972, this was the biggest, most ambitious project ever done in that territory. And that's a quite unexpected transition for a band like Jethro Tull. From <strong>Aqualung</strong>, they didn't even bother coming up with a "rehearsal" album lile Yes did with <strong>The Yes Album</strong> or Genesis did with <strong>Trespass</strong>. Nope. They went <em>straight</em> into this. And what this is? Well, this is a big 43-minute <em>composition</em>, spread through the two sides of the record. And don't come with that crap of "two sidelong songs", because they're really the same song. There's no economy nor modesty. This is as puffed-up as it could ever be. And Ian &amp; Co. don't waste efforts in making it as complex and mindboggling as possible.</p>

<p>Indeed, in my opinion, it's quite surprising that the guys managed to be <em>that</em> successful in their first attempt. No matter how "artsy" some aspects of <strong>Aqualung</strong> were, they were <em>far</em> from the kind of Progressive Rock that the guys achieve on here. And in a way, they are in the cutting edge. This is the kind of Prog Rock that the bands would adopt from now on. King Crimson had their weirdo Jazz influences; ELP relied almost entirely on Keith Emerson's classically trained organs; Genesis were still learning. This is closer to Yes than anything else, but they have one advantage over Yes - okay, more than one, really. Firstly, there are several instruments on here, and they're <em>constantly</em> working. Nobody "leads the way" on here, like Chris Squire with his bass, or maybe even Steve Howe with his guitar. There is flute, there is organ, there is piano, there is guitar, and even though they have their "solo" spots spread through the album, the accent is obviously on the instrumental themes and on the interaction of the instruments, both in the hard parts and in the soft parts. Secondly, Ian's lyrics <em>make sense</em>: he doesn't try to evoke imagery, tell tales or create moods with his lyrics. This is <em>social critique</em>, and definitely hard hitting, I shall say. Some might complain that Ian's lyrics are too difficult to understand, but once you do, the meaning of these lyrics become clear as water.</p>

<p>So, that's the "technical" detail. If they were better or worse than Yes, or King Crimson, or ELP, I don't care. Important is to say that this is one of the albums that best <em>define</em> Prog Rock, because it focuses intensely on the <em>musical</em> aspects of the piece. While there are fiery performances, puffed-up lyrics, complexity and self-importance, the band never puts the spotlight <em>only</em> in one of those details, if you understand me. The whole package is cleverly crafted and constructed. And yes, the musical themes on here are brilliant. The music is always very consistent, while passing through a big number of different themes and passages. There are fast, rocking ones, there are gentle acoustic meanderings, there are cool flute-driven marches, and there are even those noise fests on the beginning of side two. What do we have? A reprise of the fast guitar riff, followed by some drum solos with flutes and bells, and then the whole band starts playing, but suddenly everything slowly falls apart into one big mess with TV sounds and all... starts again, and collapses... starts once again, and collapses... and we're back to the acoustic guitar. Cool. I like this stuff, because it's not exaggerated. But it's not one or two spots that make the album so outstanding. Each and every theme is important to the development of the composition, each one introduced as the song goes, and being resolved one into each other as the piece approaches its final moments, completing full cycle in the end.</p>

<p>Believe me, this stuff is <em>very good</em>. You might have your prejudices against Tull, but <em>this</em> album is a key piece in understanding Prog Rock, and it's fair and balanced enough not to put off anyone who has the slightest disgust about the genre as a role. No excesses here. This might be not the <em>best</em> the genre has to offer, but it's arguably the most representative. Get it today.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - My, oh my! It's almost perfect.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Well, I can't say Ian was the master of sincerity, but some of the passages on here are wicked and bitter. And funny!<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - It basically sums up everything that's great about Prog rock in way that had never been done before.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Hmm...<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Yeah, you heard it!
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.8 = <strong class="ten">10</strong>
</p>

<p>And your wisemen don't know how it feels to <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">wait for your mail</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="play">A Passion Play (1973)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Er...</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>A Passion Play (Part 1 / The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles / Part 2) <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Point of controversy. Many people think this is the real culmination of "one song" Tull, while others think it's an absolute disaster after the glory of <strong>Thick As A Brick</strong>. Me?</p>

<p>I'm not gonna lie to you. I enjoy this album. I <em>genuinely</em> enjoy this one. I don't consider it as perfect and shiny as its predecessor, but it's rather a worthwhile album. Unlike <strong>Thick As A Brick</strong>, this one <em>has</em> excesses. Unfortunately, Ian went <em>totally</em> overboard with the complexity, both in the music and in the lyrics. Hmm... Lyrically, the album is quite impenetrable. But if you read the lyrics closely, you'll understand what's going on. The man dies, and proceeds to watch his whole life being told as a movie. After that, he goes to Heaven, but the place is so dull and boring he decides to ask Mr. G. Oddie (no kidding) to go to Hell, and so he does. But Hell is a truly damned and horrible place, so the man decides to be <em>reborn</em>, because he's neither 100% good or 100% evil. Not a bad story, I admit, but the way it's told is way too overboard to make any <em>serious</em> impression on the listener, which tends to put people off, first and foremost.</p>

<p>Musically? Well, unlike the previous album, where all music came together in one consistent package, the music on the album is an absolute <em>mess</em>. In one way, it's not hard to see why: On <strong>Thick As A Brick</strong>, the music was the unifying element, while the lyrics were constantly varying; here, the <em>music</em> varies, and the story ties everything together. So, the music is always constantly changing between all sorts of crazy passages. The first portion of the album is mostly made of a piano ballad, but there are those fast saxophone-led outbursts of sound, that detract you from the "real" thing. Afterwards, the music gets more bitter and hard-hitting, but no less enjoyable. I, personally, like mostly everything about the album. After all, I'm used to listening to "messy" albums, like <strong>Amarok</strong>, and enjoy them wholeheartedly. So, maybe, <em>I</em> am the weirdo on here. Nonetheless, I <em>do</em> honestly like the album. Once you get used to the overall picture, it's not difficult to clutch and grab each of these distinct themes.</p>

<p>Highlights? Well, I dunno. The "main" piano theme is quite darned good, and among all those fast "passages", I like the "Forest Dances" taht close part one and begin part two. There's the hard rockin' "Critique Oblique", that might be my favourite moment on the album, too. And let's not forget the silly fable of 'The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles' told by Jeffrey Hammond in the true "story-telling" accent, followed by a whole orchestra impersonating each of the animal characters. And it's placed smackdab in the middle of the album! Apparently, the album is designed as a true "Passion Play", that were orchestral pieces that told the history of the Passion of Christ, and in the middle of these Plays, there were also fables like this one. So, its presence is fully justified, and doesn't sound like a cheap gimmick. Plus, the piece itself is definitely funny.</p>

<p>The only sad thing is that the guys decided to meld the whole thing in <em>one</em> track. I'd far prefer if there were three, at least <em>two</em> tracks. What are those guys thinking? Albums like these have natural breaks in the middle! Don't try to fool us, CD-age wankers. Are you the same guys who remastered all those Moody Blues albums? Well, know that you <em>butchered</em> the notion of Long Play. <em>We</em> know that, in the days of old, you had to flip the side of the record to listen to the rest of the album. And well... I <em>still</em> do so, because I own a couple of LP's. So, don't try to brainwash our young minds with your stupid pieces of "digital" plastic.</p>

<p>Now, will anyone answer why the centre hole of my <strong>Foxtrot</strong> is so tight I need to press it down to make it enter the turntable? Damn stupid record makers mumble mumble mumble yawn...</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Ahh, the old <em>9</em> grade...<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Eh...<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Not the most innovative record ever, but I suppose it's original.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Ahh, the old <em>9</em> grade... again.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - You knew what grade I would give here, didn't you?
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <strong class="grade">9</strong>
</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="beast">Broadsword And The Beast (1982)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Flying Colours</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Beastie <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Clasp <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Fallen On Hard Times <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Flying Colours <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Slow Marching Band <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Broadsword <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Pussy Willow</li>
  <li>Watching Me Watching You</li>
  <li>Seal Driver <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Cheerio</li>
</ol>

<p>You should know that, with time, Jethro Tull pretty much dropped the Progressive Rock thang. So, what is this album about? Well, just looking at the cover and the album title, you can tell that it's fantasy-based - as in, nerd Dungeons &amp; Dragons RPG music. But, of course, Jethro Tull weren't Uriah Heep to take themselves <em>so</em> seriously, so Ian Anderson only uses the fantasy themes as a background for his vague lyrics. Besides, some songs hardly have anything to do with fantasy - in spite of the album sides being "titled", just like on <strong>Aqualung</strong>, this is far from a concept album. Phew! Ian has <em>some</em> sense of decency.</p>

<p>So what about the <em>music</em>? Well, take this description: synth-peppered hard rock. Yep, simple as that! But it's quite light sounding, notice. Ian was no metal musician wannabe (yet), so this music isn't really about heaviness and kick-arseness. In fact, it sounds quite sinthy and late-period Moody Blues-y at times ('Flying Colours', for example), but it's still rock music, and it's highly enjoyable. After all, the average level of quality in the album is high! And the individual songs are catchy, substantial and fresh! Even if no song really stands out and shines brightly, the album is very consistent, and no part of it should grate on your ears at all. The synths aren't really obstrusive, only augmenting the riffs and the guitars. Ian still plays flute when needed, and unless you can't stand the Vocoder, you shall stomach the album is fine.</p>

<p>These songs will be coming back to your head if you give them a chance. For example, I've got 'Fallen On Hard Times' on my head right now. Not because it's outstanding, but because of its catchy hook(s). It has a "marching" beat that will be familiar to the fans of <strong>Thick As A Brick</strong>. The "heavier" songs are the two side openers, that give the titles to their respective sides: 'Beastie', by far the most "evil" and heavy sounding, and 'Broadsword', with its "imperial" riff and majestic vocals. On side A, you get more goodies like 'Clasp', that is faster, and counts on cool flute. 'Flying Colours' is terrific, starting just as a piano ballad, but soon acquiring a speedy rhythm and taking off. On the other hand, 'Slow Marching Band' is a slow ballad... dare I say it's a power ballad? Well, I don't know, really. This song is way too good for me to call a "power ballad". Is a power ballad bad by definition? I mean, all those metal bands doing cheesy power ballads... is there such a thing as a "good" power ballad? If there is, 'Slow Marching Band' must be one. Even thought it's not <em>exactly</em> a power ballad. It's just a ballad with a certain strength and power... Oh, to the hell with it. It's a great, beautiful ballad.</p>

<p>Side B has 'Watching Me Watching You', a strange little song with a synth rhythm and a very tense 6/8 rhythm. It's not as great as the others, but that tense rhythm really has me. 'Pussy Willow' has Mediaeval-tinged flutes mixed in with a hard rock rhythm, and... Well, don't bother too much with 'Cheerio'. It's one minute long, and is just a happy ditty for closing the album. A good one still. I like this album very much. It may not be in my list of favourites, but I know I'll enjoy it whenever I put it on, and I believe you'll enjoy it too.</p> 

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Yep!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Well, it's fantasy theme... I bet it's pretty hard to make fantasy-themed music truly emotionally resonant...<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - There's nothing terribly new, but everything is competent and fresh.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Of course, the songs themselves are well written, and that might be the album's biggest strength.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Consistent, it definitely is.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.6 = <strong class="grade">8.5</strong>
</p>

<p><a href="mailto:no-marriage@yahoo.com">Mail no-marriage@yahoo.com</a>.</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Genesis</h2>

<h2 id="cryme">Nursery Cryme (1972)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>The Musical Box</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">The Musical Box ++</span></li>
  <li>For Absent Friends <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Return Of The Giant Hogweed ++</span></li>
  <li>Seven Stones</li>
  <li><span class="good">Harold The Barrel ++</span></li>
  <li>Harlequin</li>
  <li>The Fountain Of Salmacis <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Genesis is one of those Prog bands that had a <em>real</em> humble start. You know? By the time they decided to take the Progressive route, they had <em>almost</em> everything they needed to succeed. They had the brains, they had the creativity, they had the ideas... and <strong>Nursery Cryme</strong> represents the moment when the band gains another important feature for their development: <em>professional</em> playing. Tony Banks was an extremely competent keyboardist, and he was always able to carry the band forward (for better or for worse), but the arrival Phil Collins and Steve Hackett represented a <em>big</em> improvement in the drums section and in the guitar section (respectively). As a result, the band were able to take their wildest ideas forward, motivated by the band's instrumental competence. Add this to the fact that Peter was feeling more and more free to develop his mystical, absurdist motifs, and you've got the <em>big</em> breakthrough Genesis album.</p>

<p>With only seven songs, it shouldn't be any trouble trying to understand what the album is like. The whole Prog schtick is mostly reserved for three songs - the "long" songs on here. 'The Musical Box' is, how do you call it, a "psychological thriller" of sorts. The story is told in the liner notes, and apparently, the girl kills the guy with a crocket mallet, and he comes back from the dead to get his revenge as she finds his musical box. Whatever, it's a nutty story anyway. The actual <em>lyrics</em> merely paint the background for the story, and they work darned well. But it's the damn <em>music</em> that captivates me here. Everything starts apparently quiet and slow, but those guitar picking and bass lines are truly <em>ominous</em>, and Peter wastes no effort in making things even <em>more</em> ominous. And soon enough, the band takes off in a couple of faster, rocking sections, constrasting them heavily with sudden quiet sections again. All in all, the song is fantastic, and as it reaches the inevitable finale, I'm completely astonished. Before the other "epic", we have the short acoustic ballad 'For Absent Friends', lead vocals by Phil Collins, which is often maligned for reasons I'll never be able to understand. As far as acoustic ballads are concerned, this one is definitely beautiful. Those guys could recognise a good melody when they saw one! But anyway, it's not the acoustic ballads that matter here. 'The Return Of The Giant Hogweed' is fantastic enough to rival 'The Musical Box'. It's less serious, and Peter, this time, tells a story worthy of a cheap B horror flick. Plus, the band work is absolutely flawless. The fast, 12/8 rhythm, the instrumental themes, the exciting finale... Oh, it's useless to try and discuss this. I won't deny the song is theatrical, and there are many people who seem to have a great allergy to Peter's theatrical excurses. But if you don't like it, you can just hold on to the fantastic music. It is there!</p>

<p>On side B, things go down a little. 'The Fountain Of Salmacis' is yet another stab at a lengthy, Prog Rock composition, but this one is a bit inferior, due to spending too much time in rather uninspired instrumental sections that don't have that much to do with the rest of the song. Still, that organ theme is something really beautiful. Plus, the other ballads have always failed to make a real impression on me. 'Harlequin', unlike 'For Absent Friends', shows no really beautiful melodies, and 'Seven Stones' goes on for too long without accomplishing anything big. Okay, so those themes are fairly beautiful, but... You know. Fortunately, 'Harold The Barrel' is a big showcase of Peter's theatrical skills, and I <em>like</em> it. It's the kind of wacked out, unpredictable thing that always presents something new in every second, and the millions of transitions from slow to fast parts will leave you begging for more.</p>

<p>In all, I can say this is an album worth owning - if only because you'll hear a lot of Steve Hackett on here. The guy sure knows how to handle his guitar, and Tony Banks makes sure to spend some time on the piano and Mellotron. You'll see on the next review why I'm saying that, but the fact is: as far as "breakthrough" albums are concerned, this one is not too far from <strong>The Yes Album</strong>. There's not the mind-boggling band work Yes had in bunches, but I enjoy the guts out of the album. The guys sure can make things worth it with a ton of energy, high levels of excitement, cool themes and a certain Peter Gabriel going nuts on top of it.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - You bet it. I'm not gonna be very mean at 'Seven Stones' because the other songs... well, the other songs!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - You can't go wrong with Peter Gabriel. And when the band rocks, the band rocks for <em>real</em>.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - They were original in their own way, but they weren't as highly influential in the Prog area as your average King Crimson and Yes.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Yeah, when these guys wanted a good melody, they went there and made them.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - A little bitching here. The immaculate fun of side one makes side two pale in comparison.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.6 = <strong class="grade">8.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Raves? Rants? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="foxtrot">Foxtrot (1972)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Umm... that's not as easy as it seems.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Watcher Of The Skies ++</span></li>
  <li>Time Table <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Get 'Em Out By Friday ++</span></li>
  <li>Can-Utility And The Coastliners <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Horizons <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Supper's Ready ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Something happened. The number of songs went down to <em>six</em>, yet the running length of the album went up to <em>fifty minutes</em>. Yeah, honey, Genesis is becoming ambitious. Here, the guys stop "trying" to make Prog Rock and actually present us a <em>full fledged</em> Progressive Rock album. No rehearsals, no experiences. This is it, the real thing. The result?</p>

<p>Well, the result actually rules. It seems they realised that their real power was with the complex songs, not with stuff like 'Seven Stones'. They start taking advantage from their strengths: the melody writing, Peter's voice, the instrumental themes, <em>that</em> kind of stuff. It's a fact that Genesis doesn't achieve success with merely the power of their performances, like King Crimson or Yes, much less with a unique sound, like Pink Floyd. Their power is in <em>writing songs</em>, and that's exactly what they do here. The only big complaint I have is the lack of Steve Hackett and the overabundance of Tony Banks. There's no denying Steve is a great guitarist, and I hardly can hear his playing on here. He's there, but not allowed to make full use of his technique. On the other hand, Tony <em>stuffs</em> the album with his organ. I have nothing against organ, but Tony uses a very annoying organ sound: thick, monotonous and tremolo-less, so everywhere you'll be hearing those overbearing "guuuuuuuhh, guuuuuuuuh, g-g-guuuuuuuuuhh" sounds. That was <em>not</em> a clever tactic. On the other hand, we have more flute on here! Not the Ian Anderson kind of flute, mind you. But Peter uses those sweet notes in the right spots for some... um, variety, I guess. Also, Tony allows us to enjoy some of his piano playing, like in the absolutely beautiful ballad 'Time Table'. The solemn sound, the grandiose vocal melodies and that simple, striking piano theme completely make the song. It's probably the least complex composition of the album, along with Steve's classical guitar spot, 'Horizons'; and I love it. As far as acoustic guitar compositions are concerned, this one is an absolute winner. Lots of harmonics, too!</p>

<p>Anyway, these aren't the real focus of the album. This time around, there is <em>more</em> complex stuff and less filler. One of the biggest highlights here is the opener 'Watcher Of The Skies'. The intro of the song is already something special, with Tony creating an absolutely spooky sequence on his Mellotron, which slowly leads the way for the catchy, immortal rhythm line. The song is brilliantly written and constructed (as usual), and the impact it causes will leave a permanent hole in your soul. Yes, it has those overbearing organs, and the lyrics are stupid. But who am I to care, when we have Peter in the vocals, anyway? 'Get'em Out By Friday' marks the return of the sci-fi tales, this time about greedy people negotiating properties "for the interest of humanity" and making a "four feet restriction on humanoid height", but all of this followed by the band's ingenious instrumentation, brilliant 'storytelling' style, and even some great flute playing by Peter. On a less "heavy" note, the side closer 'Can-Utility And The Coastliners' shows the "mellow" side of the band, with gentle vocal melodies on the beginning, but presents an intense transition into the land of acoustic guitar and Mellotron, culminating in a grandiose ending that sounds nothing like the beginning. I will never understand why this song is so maligned, but it's not like I care, anyway.</p>

<p>Finally, it's time to talk about the 24-minute-long 'Supper's Ready' and its glory. I guess I should say that it's not similar to other "epics" of its era, and it's actually <em>better</em> than many "epics" of its era - 'Tarkus', for example. Here, the band is given absolute freedom to explore all possible sides of their music: romantic, heavy, soft, raging, gentle, funny, frightening, etc. Peter presents us the Apocalypse in a way you'll never see again, with all sorts of odd references to odd things and odd things happening. And the music? Well, the <em>music</em>... Suffice to say, this is some of the best Genesis music you'll find. As you should expect, the song is less 'focused' than the "shorter" compositions they've done: 'The Musical Box' is scary, 'The Return Of The Giant Hogweed' is goofy, 'Watcher Of The Skies' is majestic, 'Get'em Out By Friday' is memorable... This one tries to be all at the same time. Granted, you'll have all sorts of different passages: louder, furious ones (with excellent solo spots by Steve Hackett), softer, beautiful ones (with more of those immortal vocal melodies), heavier, scary ones (with Tony making <em>good</em> use of his organ solos) and extra funny ones ("Willow Farm" and its numerous vocal tricks). And this whole mess ends with a grandiose, absolutely smashing finale. Easily one of the most emotional moments of Genesis music ever, this little piece of music is enough to completely justify the rest of the song.</p>

<p>Whether it has anything to do with "foxtrot" or not, I'll never know. But granted, this is one big, exciting trip through the wicked worlds of Peter Gabriel and his band of merry men. These guys knew how to make Prog rock without being excessive. One might argue that they <em>became</em> excessive from now on, but real musicians always compensate their "excesses" with pure talent. Read on.</p>

<p>EDIT: A <em>9</em>? Who am I kidding? This album takes the 9 and kicks it out of the window. 9.5.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Ah hah! They found it! The Scroll of Neverending Fun!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - The beauty really shows through, in every track.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - They were never "cutting edge" as far as Prog Rock is concerned, but the band has found a style all of its own.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Ooh! These guys knew how to write good music.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - A slight lack of song flow there. But nothing to moan about.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.6 = <strong class="grade">9.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Use the Mail</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="pound" class="best">Selling England By The Pound (1973)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Firth Of Fifth</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Dancing With The Moonlit Knight ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe) ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Firth Of Fifth ++</span></li>
  <li>More Fool Me <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Battle Of Epping Forest ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">After The Ordeal ++</span></li>
  <li>The Cinema Show <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>(Aisle Of Plenty)</li>
</ol>

<p>Something happened... No, something <em>else</em> happened. If you haven't noticed yet, this is Genesis's big album. The One Genesis album, understand me? Yeah, one of those 'masterpieces' of Rock music, one of those records that you should own if you wanna know what life is all about. And yes, before you ask me, the album <em>is</em> that good. At least, that's what I think. If you dislike the record, I don't really five a fuck. This is <em>my</em> reviews page, and if I want to say this is the best album ever made, I can and I will do so. Thank you.</p>

<p>But actually, I don't think this is the best album ever made. Still, it is the best Genesis album ever, and one of the very best Progressive Rock albums ever made. I'm talking about <em>big</em> stuff here. This is just not your average "complex" album. This is <em>great</em> stuff, you know. Now, go buy the record and listen to it for yourself. I'm tired of trying to describe it to you. No, seriously, I'm tired of rewriting these reviews. I hate saying what I have already said before. And if I wasn't such a lousy reviewer half an year ago, I wouldn't need to do so. But I'm never satisfied with who I was in the past, even if "past" represents what happened one second ago. See? I just wrote that sentence, and I'm not satisfied with it.</p>

<p><strong>Selling England By The Pound</strong> (1973)<br />
Best song: Firth Of Fifth<br />
Track list:</p>
<ol>
  <li>Dancing With The Moonlit Knight ++</li>
  <li>I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe) ++</li>
  <li>Firth Of Fi</li>
</ol>

<p>Oh, wait a minute. I have already done that. My mistake, sorry. Anyway, <strong>Selling England By The Pound</strong>. Yeah, this record is great. There are no 24-minute epics on here, yet the album is actually <em>longer</em> than <strong>Foxtrot</strong>. Fifty-three minutes! Not that I care much, but be aware that you'll be getting <em>more</em> quality music for the same price of much shorter LP/CD/cassete! What a bargain. There are seven songs on here, and <em>four</em> of them go over the 8-minute barrier. They're fairly different from each other, and even if some of these songs don't superate certain epics from the past ('The Return Of The Giant Hogweed', 'Get'em Out By Friday'), they are all wonderful, and put together in a wonderful package! You want some patented Gabriel theatricity? You got 'The Battle Of Epping Forest': tons of solid memories, more of those unique vocal deliveries, brilliant band work, and an exciting story of a gang fight! For eleven minutes! Some people complain that it's overlong. Overlong my arse. The song deserves every second from its running length, and every note is in place.</p>

<p>You want some artsy compositions? You got 'Firth Of Fifth', with even <em>more</em> of those fantastic melodies, a great piano theme in the beginning, and wonderful vocal parts with absolutely stupid lyrics. Yeah, the lyrics suck big time. Come on, people, even <em>I</em> can write better lyrics than Tony Banks. If I were in charge of the band, I would have determined, once and for all, that Peter Gabriel would write <em>every</em> word for every Genesis composition... until he left. Anyway, bad lyrics or not, this is one wonderful song. You gotta hear those numerous mood changes to believe it. And if you think that's all, behold! 'Dancing With The Moonlit Knight' is, probably, the quintessential Genesis song. <em>Everything</em> good about the band is here, and this is the best place in the record to enjoy Peter Gabriel's voice and Steve Hackett's super professional guitar playing, aside from some piano and Mellotron by our friend Tony. Finally, the closing 'The Cinema Show' is kinda like 'The Fountain Of Salmacis': not spectacular, but really good. Unlike 'The Fountain Of Salmacis', though, it's not the instrumentals that annoy me. Of course, the verses are as pretty as ever, with Mike Rutherford playing acoustic guitar, and one of those instrumental breaks reminds me of 'Supper's Ready', and it's a <em>very</em> annoying resemblance. However, as the lyrics end, Tony switches to the synthesizer and delivers a magnificent, lengthy solo (some say Steve is also playing on here, but I can't confirm this)... and as everything comes to an end, Peter brings back the 'Dancing With The Moonlit Knight' theme, and the album ends on a gloomy, uncertain note. Weird...</p>

<p>But we all know Genesis isn't Genesis if the guys can't write some nice, shorter songs. There is no 'Harold The Barrel' on here, however there is no 'Harlequin', either! We only have goodies on here. On side A, we have two of the poppiest songs the band wrote so far. 'I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe)' is one of those songs that should play on the radio every day. You know, <em>I</em> would play this song everyday if I owned a radio station. But since I do not, I'm contented with playing this song in my stereo so loud that the whole neighbourhood can hear it, and then, they'll be captivated by that vocal delivery and the catchy chorus. 'More Fool Me' is an acoustic guitar romantic ballad sung by Phil Collins, and it's actually a great one. It's nice, mellow, and beautiful. Well written, too. Ah, this is the Phil Collins I'm proud of... On side B, there are no Pop songs, but there is the extremely gorgeous instrumental 'After The Ordeal', written by Steve Hackett. And both on the classical guitar part and in the electric guitar part, the song kicks. The guitar playing is amazing, as usual, and those themes... those arrangements! I'm really, really fond of this song, and I think you should, too.</p>

<p>In the end, I can say that this is, in my opinion, the proverbial "perfect" album, where you can't change a single note in it. It may not be groundbreaking, but it is a mindboggling musical experience. All the "grandiosity" of the music and the stupidness of the lyrics to 'Firth Of Fifth' is justified by the extreme gorgeousness of these songs. <em>This</em> is what Prog Rock is all about, after all.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Simply brilliant, every spot works.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - It speaks directly into your soul, if you give it a chance.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Genesis weren't the most innovative Prog band ever, but what they do here is certainly original.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Try to disagree with me here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - This album is <em>frighteningly</em> cohesive for a Prog album.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.8 = <strong class="ten">10</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? Arguments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="broadway">The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway (1974)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>It</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Fly On A Windshield ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Broadway Melody Of 1974 ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Cuckoo Cocoon ++</span></li>
  <li>In The Cage <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Grand Parade Of Lifeless Packaging ++</span></li>
  <li>Back In New York City</li>
  <li>Hairless Heart <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Counting Out Time <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Carpet Crawlers ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Chamber Of 32 Doors ++</span></li>
  <li>Lilywhite Lilith</li>
  <li>The Waiting Room</li>
  <li>Anyway <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Here Comes The Supernatural Anaesthetist <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Lamia ++</span></li>
  <li>Silent Sorrow In Empty Boats</li>
  <li>The Colony Of Slippermen</li>
  <li>Ravine</li>
  <li>The Light Dies Down On Broadway <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Riding The Scree <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>In The Rapids</li>
  <li><span class="good">It ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>This monstrousity is a double conceptual album - yeah, like <strong>The Wall</strong>. And like <strong>The Wall</strong>, there are both things I like and things I dislike on here. Firstly, the sound in the album is pretty different from the Genesis of the previous albums. For one, Steve Hackett is obscured <em>again</em>, and Tony Banks has been playing more and more with synthesizers - and he's much more proeminent on here. More organs, more synths, more keyboards - less guitar. And even if the whole story and almost all lyrics are conceived by Peter, the music is... different. You know? This is no <strong>Selling England By The Pound</strong>. This is that darkish, strange story-telling music for you.</p>

<p>I'm not saying the album is not Genesis-like. It <em>is</em> Genesis-like. But the aspects of Genesis shown here are not the aspects I enjoy the most. Yes, there are melodies. Yes, there are eccentric, theatrical performances. Yes, there is cool playing. But it is... kinda unfocused. And Tony is wanking everywhere. Yes, there's too much Tony Banks on here. The problem is not Tony per se, but the overabuse of synthesizers and stuff. Still, the album <em>is</em> pretty varied, and it's useless to make generalisations about the album. First and foremost, this is, like I said, a big conceptual album - almost a rock-opera of sorts. Peter tells the story of this Rael dude who dies for some reason, and goes on a long, arduous journey to see if he belongs in Heaven or Hell. There are several tests presented to him, and most times, the situations are kinda obscure and unclear, which can make the story misleading, at times. But yes, there is a plot, and it's quite comprehensible, if a little vague. Following Peter's commentary on the liner notes help quite a lot.</p>

<p>Songs? Well, you got plenty of them. The first portion of the album is quite darned great. The title track opens the album is a great, rockin' mood. Quite... um, <em>straightforward</em> for a Genesis song, but hey, it's only one in <em>twenty-three</em> songs in here, and the whole complexity lies in the album as a whole. Nonetheless, it's a darned great Genesis classic. It's got a cool riff, it's got cool singing... you know the rest. The combo of 'Fly On A Windshield' and 'Broadway Melody Of 1974' depict Rael's death in a brilliant way. The first song starts slow and ominous, before a powerful, slow rhythm bursts in, and leaves us to the puzzling lyrics that depict the very last second of Rael's death. This is really a <em>brilliant</em> lyrical moment, and after the storm, 'Cuckoo Coccoon' soothes you with a <em>lovely</em> guitar line, some pretty vocals and flutes. It's nothing but a cute, little ballad, but a <em>great</em> cute, little ballad. I love it.</p>

<p>After that, the music - and the story - becomes more dense. 'In The Cage' introduces to the dark underworld in which Rael is trapped, and the song is really powerful, raging and scary. Tony comes up with a great organ line and pumps it out with all his might, and Peter tears himself in two to make everything believable. To close the first side, 'The Grand Parade Of Lifeless Packaging' is that usual, funny Genesis piece that describes Hell in a way you would never imagine. It's catchy, funny and creepy at the same time. I really like this tune. This is a quite funny interpretation of Evil, you see. The "marching" rhythm and the ominous chorus do it for me.</p>

<p>That's the first side, arguably the best part of the album. After that, it's an onslaught of bizarre scenes and storytelling. There are little things in these songs that kinda annoy me. You know, not the <em>songs</em> themselves, but <em>details</em> that get on my nerves - though I must admit some songs don't do the trick the way I expected it. I was never a fan of 'Lilywhite Lilith' for some obscure reason. The rocking rhythm is okay, but I dunno... the vocal lines annoy me more than entertain me. I might be nuts, anyway. 'Back In New York City' goes away with too much loud bashing and shouting, and 'The Colony Of Slipperman' must be my least favourite Genesis song of its style. Yes, it's the funny, theatrical Peter Gabriel piece like 'Get'em Out By Friday', but I never liked it. Plus, there are those synth solos that never appealed too much for me. Plus, there are those instrumentals... 'The Waiting Room' shows Genesis <em>couldn't</em> handle the style of atonal noisemaking, and the final, rockier part has an annoying-as-hell synth sound. 'Silent Sorrow In Empty Boats' works <em>great</em> as a melancholic finale to 'The Lamia'... for one minute or so. After that, it overdoes the trick, and loses me completely. And 'Ravine'? Well, that's some repetitive noisemaking for you... though it intrigues me. You know <em>Brian Eno</em> is featured in the album, and he says his job was to give treatments to the instruments, the kind of thing he used to do for Roxy Music; notice those weird vocal effects on 'Cuckoo Coccoon' and 'The Grand Parade Of Lifeless Packaging'. But 'Ravine' is the kind of repetitive instrumental in the style of <strong>Another Green World</strong>... <em>one year before</em> <strong>Another Green World</strong>. Do you see traces of Ambient music forming in here??</p>

<p>That's enough moaning. The album goes on several highs and lows, but the highs are really high! I'm a fan of 'Carpet Crawlers', with its gorgeous atmosphere and that warm, soothing chorus. 'The Chamber Of 32 Doors' showcases more of that brilliant bandwork and a dazzling Peter Gabriel performance. I've always liked the piano ballad 'Anyway', and the eerie 'Hairless Heart', plus there is 'Counting Out Time' - one of those fantastically entertaining tunes a la 'I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe)', but this one is much more hilarious. I won't spoil it for you, but reading the lyrics and listening to that chorus is a <em>must</em>. 'Here Comes The Supernatural Anaesthetist' features a <em>magnificent</em>, and badly needed Steve Hackett solo spot, and 'Riding The Scree' features a funny synthesizer work (at last!). Those instrumental spots give a whole lot of meaning and <em>feel</em> to the story, especially since Gabriel's lyrics start becoming a little overbearing.</p>

<p>Finally, two tracks grab my attention with all their might. 'The Lamia' is <em>stunningly</em> gorgeous and sad. The piano in the song is one of the biggest highlights in Tony's career, and Peter wastes no effort to try and captivate you. And he will, especially when the choruses come around. And to close the song, Steve gets a <em>magnificent</em>, heartbreaking solo for him. The track is an absolute pinnacle in Genesis's story, and ranks as one of the best tracks in here. The album closer, however, gets the trophy. '<em>It</em>' presents an intriguing set of lyrics that describe "<em>it</em>", without saying what "<em>it</em>" is. It sounds like a put on, but deep down, it is true that the song represents Rael's arrival in Heaven, and also seems to talk about <em>the album itself</em>. "If you think that <em>it</em>'s pretentious, you've been taking for a ride", eh? Plus, there are all those other metaphors and innuendoes that suggest that. But it's not the lyrics that matter here. The song kicks off with a fast, rocking rhythm, full of energy and vigour, plus a <em>killer</em>, gorgeous riff. All those semi-verses and semi-choruses, modulations and transitions... Man, what a song. If there is one Genesis <em>rocker</em> that you need to listen to, this is the one. That riff!! I could listen to that song for hours!</p>

<p>But yes, the album is a bit too up-and-down for my tastes. And I'm not in the mood to fish out the good ones from the rest, since they're all crossfading into each other. And the story would lose its meaning. Damn those concept albums, anyway. But this is certainly a good album to listen to, once in a while. Some people say this is the best Genesis album ever, anyway. But then again, there are people who say <strong>Wind And Wuthering</strong> is the best Genesis album ever. So, I dunno. Give it a try...</p>

<p>... but what the heck <em>did</em> Eno do, in here?</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Ehn. Some moments kinda turn me off.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Tell you what, some moments <em>are</em> evocative, but at times, this sounds deadly artificial.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Genesis has done more original stuff (*ahem*<strong>Selling England By The Pound</strong>*ahem*), but that unique concept is enough to give it a good rating.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Well, they are still good songwriters.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Well, I suppose it's quite cohesive and solid.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.4 = <strong class="grade">8.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? Arguments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail</a>!</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Peter Gabriel</h2>

<h2 id="gabriel1">Peter Gabriel (1977)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Solsbury Hill</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Moribund, The Burgermeister ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Solsbury Hill ++</span></li>
  <li>Modern Love</li>
  <li>Excuse Me <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Humdrum <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Slowburn</li>
  <li>Waiting For The Big One <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Down The Dolce Vita <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Here Comes The Flood</li>
</ol>

<p>Peter Gabriel... Peter Gabriel. ... Peter Gabriel. I never wanted to think of him as the only real important thing on Genesis, and tried to see the band as a real combination of things. But after hearing his solo albums, I realised that Peter Gabriel is, truly, a force to be reckoned. He's one of the few musicians that I can comfortably call The Man (others are David Byrne, Brian Eno, maybe Jean Michel Jarre and Mike Oldfield). The guy was a real pool of creativity. Mr. Ex-Long Hair would grab the cue, start hitting balls randomly and they <em>would</em> fall in the holes. Get the analogy? No? Me neither. But many do say that Peter's first solo effort is "patchy". Me? I think it's a lot of fun. Of course there's a bit of Genesis nostalgia, a bit of meandering around wondering where the hell to go next, a bit of "hit and miss" spirit, but the results are fun. Why? Because Peter is a hell of a talented musician! He may not <em>succeed</em> in everything he tries, but this album proves that when he tries, he <em>tries</em>. And these tracks <em>do</em> succeed, in the honest opinion of your humble servant (the guy over there).</p>

<p>Did I say Genesis nostalgia? Well, it's right in the first tracks, for everyone to see. And listening to 'Moribund, The Burgermeister', it becomes clear that the "theatricality" and multi-part nature of the Genesis songs came largely from him. You have the classic Genesis chord changes, the funny little riff in the chorus, the funny voices, the synth effects, and who's responsible for all of that? Tony Banks? Mike Rutherford? Where <em>are</em> them? Heh, they were probably making <strong>Wind And Wuthering</strong> by this time. No matter what, Steve Hackett would soon show them the door. But this song is all Peter Gabriel. It's all there: it's a prime Genesis song, in four minutes. And remember that the stuff Genesis were making in <strong>The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway</strong> was quite different from this: not drastically different, but noticeably so. That's why it gives me the impression that, either Gabriel was detaching himself from Genesis by that time, or Banks and Rutherford were starting to elbow him out of the way. I do have a funny feeling about Peter leaving the band. The reasons are kinda unclear, I believe, but I think things weren't all that friendly. Talk about that: 'Solsbury Hill' is a clear allegory of Peter leaving Genesis, so read the lyrics and make your own conclusions. But I just find funny when Peter mentions that they "didn't need a replacement". Heh, how subtle is that?</p>

<p>Anyway, the song itself is brilliant. It's a quite folksy tune, with a memorable as FUCK guitar line (that's played by Robert Fripp, I believe - yes, Fripp plays in the album, as does Tony Levin. Hmm... is this the seed of 80's King Crimson being planted?), a cool little synth line, and a "wacky" ending in true Genesis spirit. Great track. But after it's over, Peter runs away from the ghost of Genesis and tries other things. And you have all sorts of oddities. Some of these tracks are done as pure "fun", as you can see: 'Excuse Me' begins with a Barbershop Quartet, and transforms itself in exactly the kind of song you're thinking of. And 'Waiting For The Big One' is a bluesy 7-minute "anthem" - heh heh. Anthem, eh? Nah, it's just blues, with classic "man with no money" lyrics. But you also get 70's Rock 'n' Roll in 'Modern Love', started out by a cool, clever riff. 'Slowburn' sounds a little cornier, but it has more of that "multipart" thingy, even ending with yet another Genesis-flashback thingamajik. 'Humdrum' is most interesting with its nonsense structure: it begins with Peter singing over a simple keyboard pattern, before some sort of rhumba rhythm kicks in. Peter interrupts things with his magic flute, before the Latin rhythm comes back. It stops briefly, and then these big keyboard chords come in, and things end majestically and beautifully. Does that make sense? Absolutely not, but the song is beautiful! It doesn't just "work", it's beautiful! I truly dig it, for some reason. You'll have to hear it yourself.</p>

<p>The good thing about the album is that it's mostly not overblown... and when it gets close to that, it's just in debauchery style. Though 'Down The Dolce Vita' starts out bombastic and grim, with the London Symphony Orchestra playing a huge, ominous fanfare... it's really a disco song (!), with the orchestra coming in on strategic spots. I dig that chuggin' guitar, though. And when you were expecting something fun, you get 'Here Comes The Flood'... Is there another term to describe this thing other than "Power Ballad"? I hate using "Power Ballad" for a Peter Gabriel song, but I'm afraid this is the case. It starts slow, with gentle guitar pickings and sad singing, before the drums kick in and Peter goes "Lord, here comes the flood!" in swaying-audience rhythm. But I guess this song exemplifies the difference between a "Power Ballad" done by a talented guy (like Peter, obviously) and by Aerosmith. This one's good, I say. It's a ballad, but he insters power just because he needs to. At least, he spared us the children's choir and the ringing tubular bells (if you know what I mean).</p>

<p>But this album <em>is</em> a good start. At least, it was better than I expected it to be. I got it not because I expected a masterpiece, but just because I was really curious about Peter. And it was worth it. This is a very fun listen, and I give it a 9. It's not a masterpiece, but why should it be? It doesn't need to. And by the way, there are four more albums entitled "<strong>Peter Gabriel</strong>", so you'll have to diferentiate them by their cover art. This one has a blue car in the cover, so fans call it "Car". The photos were taken by Hipgnosis. Organisation by Tony Smith, Brian and Alex at Hit and Run. The L.S.O. Arranged and Conducted by Michael Gibbs. THE FAMOUS CHARISMA LABEL</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - It's not the pinnacle of musical fun.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - This is <em>not</em> Genesis, but Peter manages his business very well.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Yeah, pretty much. These songs aren't innovative, by no means, but they're competent.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Come on, Peter <em>is</em> a talented musician.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Yup, it holds up pretty well.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.8 = <strong class="grade">9</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? Ideas? Criticism? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">I WILL FIND OUT</a>...</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="gabriel2">Peter Gabriel (1978)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>White Shadow</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">On The Air ++</span></li>
  <li>D.I.Y. <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Mother Of Violence ++</span></li>
  <li>A Wonderful Day In A One Way World <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">White Shadow ++</span></li>
  <li>Indigo</li>
  <li>Animal Magic</li>
  <li><span class="good">Exposure ++</span></li>
  <li>Flotsam And Jetsam</li>
  <li>Perspective</li>
  <li>Home, Sweet Home <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Improvement? Step-down? Honestly, I don't think it's either. This album's big strength over the previous one is, to put it bluntly, an extremely consistent and solid A side. Seriously, folks, this stretch of five tracks is one of the most perfect things Peter put out up to this moment, comparing even to some Genesis moments. It sounds clear that Peter truly knew where he was going, this time around. He gathered his crew, handed the production duties to Robert Fripp, and brought Tony Levin to play bass, as well as his beloved Chapman Stick. Do you know what that is? Go search on Wikipedia, ya lazy bum. But this album is far more focused, in most parts, than the previous. But I don't consider that as a <em>hands-down</em> advantage.</p>

<p>What I <em>do</em> consider as a hands-down advantage, though, is the A side. Things start on a roll already with 'On The Air', an awesome synth-propelled rocker with guitars, piano, and vocals coming together and delivering a super-catchy and irresistible set of chord changes, melodies and lyrics. It's clinically impossible to dislike this song. Such a step-forwards from tracks like 'Modern Love' and 'Slowburn', no matter how much I like 'em. Next in the track list is 'D.I.Y.', a shorter pop tune, whose most memorable feature is a simple upwards chromatic scale. Yep, and it manages to fit the song like a glove. It even has a mandolin, and Tony Levin makes a great use of his Stickman chap - yeah, that's right, one of Tony Levin's greatest friends is a stickman, and he even got inspired to write an MMORPG called <em>Kingdom Of Loathing</em>, located <a href="http://www.kingdomofloathing.com/">right here</a>. If you happen to enter it, donate ten billion meat to SirMustapha, and I will review <em>every album ever recorded in history</em> and put it up in the space of one week.</p>

<p>The nice thing about this album is that Peter devotes some time to softer, honest ballads, unlike 'ballads' like 'Here Comes The Flood'. 'Mother Of Violence' is a true gem, a piano ballad with Peter singing the lyrics as if they were no big deal at all. And I'd say they weren't, if Fripp didn't add one of his trademark buzzing guitar notes near the end. 'A Wonderful Day In A One Day World' echoes Genesis, once again, but in a more subtle way. But the great guitar riff, the harpsichord-like keyboard line, the hook in the chorus, will definitely bring Genesis to your mind. Nonetheless, 'White Shadow' definitely takes the cake here. It's a slow, spacious ballad that takes all its time to develop, with a wonderful keyboard tone floating and drifting through wonderful chord changes, culminating in some Gabriel sung verses, and a magnificent Fripp solo at the end. Yep, I really love songs like these, and 'White Shadow' is a gorgeous one. Call me a wussy, but that's the way it is.</p>

<p>Well, if I said the album's strength was a very solid A side... the album's weakness is a definitely inconsistent B side. Though there are some highlights here: 'Exposure' has Robert Fripp playing his Frippertronics - yes, just like on those Fripp &amp; Eno albums - and setting them to an actual "song". The drums plod along, the bass keeps playing insanely hypnotic lines, Fripp cleverly uses the tape delay system to crate guitar lines that go on forever, someone plays some lines on a recorder, and Peter keeps on chanting those scary lines, beginning with a <em>very</em> low pitched "Expoooooooooosuuuuure... Expooooooooooosuuuuure...", and finishing by singing the same thing two octaves higher! A very clever use of Frippertronics, so much that Fripp himself would feature the song in one of his solo albums. 'Home, Sweet Home' is also a goody, a beautiful 'ballad' with a rather disturbing story - something that only Peter Gabriel could create, definitely. The other tracks? Well, they range from ballads like 'Indigo' to 'Flotsam And Jetsam', the latter sounding close to "filler", although it sounds quite cute in parts, especially the ending. You also have the rockers 'Animal Magic' and 'Perspective' that, while fun on their own, are hardly better than those rocking moments on the previous album. So, I won't bash the album for the second side. It's not bad, and I don't think it would be easy to match the quality of the first side, so... Well, it's a 9, too. Peter was going very well on his own, still leaving his records untitled. But this one is also easy to identify: it's a plain photo of Peter, again by Hipgnosis. But apparently, Peter wasn't very satisfied with the results, so he poked his hands out of the cover and scratched it with his fingers. I guess Storm Thorgerson got pretty angry with that, so he messed up the cover of his third album, which was famously entitled "Melt" by Peter Gabriel fans.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Oh, yeah! It's hard to beat those first five songs.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Peter is truly getting the hang of this.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Yep! This one is far more focused than the previous one.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Read above.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Well, you'll have to cope with the inconsistency on side B... err, I mean, <em>I</em> have to cope with it. I don't know about you.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.8 = <strong class="grade">9</strong>
</p>

<p><a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me your ideas</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="gabriel3">Peter Gabriel (1980)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>*choke*</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Intruder ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">No Self Control ++</span></li>
  <li>Start</li>
  <li>I Don't Remember <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Family Snapshot ++</span></li>
  <li>And Through The Wire <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Games Without Frontiers</li>
  <li>Not One Of Us</li>
  <li>Lead A Normal Life <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Biko ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Enter the Eighties, and those who expected Peter Gabriel to buy expensive synths and start doing dance happy tunes sounding like Kraftwerk with a super high dosage of sugar might have suffered a heart attack upon listening to this one. And I guess not even the scary cover art had warned them. The previous albums also had freaky little pictures in the cover, as does this one. But for one, the music in here matches the cover very well, since it's DARK AS HECK. Pretty much everything in this album is grim and upset - even the drums, that just thump and thump endlessly, with <em>not a single</em> cymbal played anywhere. The crew hasn't changed drastically, but there are some interesting additions: Phil Collins (drums), Morris Pert (percussion), Dave Gregory (from XTC, on guitars) and Kate Bush (backing vocals). Robert Fripp is still there somewhere, Tony Levin plays only the Chapman stick, but it's mainly Peter Gabriel that matters here.</p>

<p>And what's all about him, anyway? Well, the deal is that he penned some really dark, angry songs and assembled them into one kickarse album. Geez, these songs are all so goody that it's hard to pick favourites among them. The album itself is pretty much excellent, and even though it never really grabbed me and made me give it a full blown 10, it's majorly great - not only for the individual songs, but for the <em>whole</em>: unlike the previous two albums, this one falls together in piece, as a bigger whole. No more songs sticking out in random directions: this album is as focused and direct as a laser beam. And what's a better way to start everything than with 'Intruder' and 'No Self Control'? The song titles will pretty much give the cues you need. But if you have no imagination, here go some descriptions: 'Intruder' is built around a heavy, slowly plodding drum track. And from there, you have the strange, creaky sounds, the dissonant synthesizers and dissonant marimbas, the ominous piano and all sorts of things coming and going with precision. And, of course. Peter muttering lines about invading someone's house. Lyrics like there are very open and leave room for interpretation, and you know Peter is a master in that. Even the music itself is ambivalent, not necessarily <em>scary</em>. You might even find it goofy. 'No Self Control' though, is <em>definitely</em> scary, dealing with personal compulsions and fear. "I don't like to hurt you, I hate to see your pain, but I don't know how to stop". How many people can beat those lyrics? Eh? And with the freaky, frightening music, the song becomes unstoppable. The ominous marimba rhythm, the ugly guitar chords and the "no self control" chants in the chorus will definitely get you going.</p>

<p>After that, the album kind of "lightens up", but still keeps on dealing with dark matters and dramas. You have the "hit" 'Games Without Frontiers', with its impressive set of lyrics about war, alluding to a certain British TV programme called "It's A Knockout" - which was broadcast on Europe with the name "Jeux Sans Fronti&egrave;res", which means - sure enough - "Games Without Frontiers". The song itself is quite groovy and dancey, with Kate Bush providing those unforgettable backing vocals. The music itself always struck me as somewhat clumsy, for whatever reason, but most people dig it. On the opposite side of the record is 'And Through The Wire', an oddly beautiful rocker. It sounds quite uplifting when put against the rest of the album. But then, I'm not sure what these lyrics are trying to say. Maybe they're even more depressing than 'No Self Control'? Who knows.</p>

<p>And then, you have the goofy 'I Don't Remember'. The lyrics shall tell you all you need to know about the song's topic. But you'll have to dig that solid groove Tony Levin makes on his Chapman Stick. It's one of the catchiest songs here, too. It's hard to beat choruses as simple yet striking as the "I don't remember, I don't recall" Gabriel presents here. 'Not One Of Us' is also a mostly interesting rocker, though not as memorable and catchy. But with so many songs about people being oppressed, you'll have to respect a song about <em>oppressing</em> people! Still, a song that wins all sorts of merits lyricwise <em>and</em> musicwise is 'Family Snapshot', narrating a tale of a sniper assigned to assassinate the governor, but with an impressive twist: who will know if the assassin is just recalling his unhappy childhood, or if the kid is actually imagining everyting, and about to kill his parents? If that song doesn't prove you that Peter Gabriel is a goddamn genius, you're just dumb. As for the music, every single note sets up the rising tension, the heart beating faster, the blood running faster, the muscles trembling, until <em>nothing</em> apparently happens. Absolutely impressive.</p>

<p>On a lighter note, there's 'Lead A Normal Life' - mostly instrumental, Gabriel uses a simple, spine-tingling two-note marimba line with a wonderful piano line on top, and it alternates with weird guitar noises Fripp produces and just a few sung verses. It causes a strange effect, and even though it's hard to properly decodify its "meaning", it's a beautiful, thought-provoking composition. And next in the line is 'Biko', the first time when Gabriel openly showed an interest in ethnic music and culture. Somehow, those chants used in the beginning and the end don't soung "tacked on" at all, and it seems like Gabriel can perfectly understand them. The song itself is as simple and stripped-down a moving, political anthem can probably be, and the final result is beyond spectacular. This song should prove the importance of a solid, striking melody to all the wannabe musicians out there. Few people can put out such wonderful, genuine pieces, I believe.</p>

<p>In short, what I can say is that this album should erase any doubts you may have about Peter's talent. It's a perfect showcase of everything that was good about him: intelligence, musical tact, honesty, talent... You name it, he has it here. Get the album and surrender to it. I know I did, and now I'm fully aware of what Peter Gabriel was capable of. Even though I don't feel fit to give it a 10, this may change eventually. Perhaps I need to finish my Gabriel homework? This may change in the near future, but until then, this is a 9.5, and I don't feel like knocking not a single tenth of a point. Get it and enjoy it.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Geez, man!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - It may be just me, or it may be just a few moments in the record that sound somewhat "off".<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Try to argue against that.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - That too!<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Well, maybe some moments <em>do</em> sound a little "off", but you may disagree.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.6 = <strong class="grade">9.5</strong>
</p>

<p><a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Insert witty "mail me" message here</a>... Haven't I done that joke here already? I don't remember, I don't recall...</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="gabriel4">Peter Gabriel (1982)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Um... </em><big>The Rhythm Of The Heat</big><em>, after all, I don't have many choices.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>The Rhythm Of The Heat <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>San Jacinto</li>
  <li>I Have The Touch</li>
  <li>The Family And The Fishing Net <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Shock The Monkey</li>
  <li>Lay Your Hands On Me <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Wallflower <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Kiss Of Life</li>
</ol>

<p>So, it seems Peter Gabriel left Charisma and joined another label... and what better label than Virgin to pick him up? Yes, Richard Branson's Virgin label, right! And I guess they thought the poor sales of Peter's previous albums was due, in part, to the lack of title. So, in the US, this album was "nicknamed" <strong>Security</strong>. But it has no name at all, it's just Peter Gabriel's fourth untitled LP, so don't give me that "<strong>Security</strong>" crap. That's a pretty silly name, if you ask me.</p>

<p>As for the music, it seems Peter gathered an interest on "ethnic" music, and produced a couple of songs around that. He gathered his trusty crew to play all those percussions, surdo drums, and the CMI - the instrument that Mike Oldfield was already starting to flirt with. And these songs all have that kind of dark, creepy atmosphere, with lyrics and motifs about foreign lands and rituals, and all of that. Sounds cool, eh? In theory, yes. This album seems to be a "fan favourite", of sorts, but I really don't know the Peter Gabriel fan community. But if this album <em>is</em> a fan favourite, I have to oppose them and say this album isn't too good - at least when compared to his previous successes. I have nothing against him experimenting with "ethnic" music, but this sounds merely like a plain experiment, not an <em>experience</em>. It's like a crew of people saying "now, we need a <em>dark</em>, <em>spooky</em> atmosphere, exotic instruments, and Peter can improvise some stuff on top and we have a good track to fill up this open slot." And the songs that are not "ethnic" go for a "dancey" direction, with funky rhythms and <em>trendy</em> synths. Fortunately, this album sounds nowhere as dated as it could have sounded - the production is excellent - but the tracks themselves aren't that hot. They aren't catchy, the lyrics don't tell me much, and the atmosphere and mood is quite forced. 'I Have The Touch' never did anything special to me, and... I'm sorry, but <em>what the hell</em> is 'Shock The Monkey' all about? I rarely complain about "meaningless" lyrics, and some fan can tell me the lyrics aren't meaningless at all. But if they aren't meaningless, at least they're awfully, <em>awfully</em> inane. Wikipedia tells me the song references animal cruelty. Does that make sense to you? Well, it makes <em>some</em> sense to me, but I still can't swallow these lyrics. And when the song relies on a <em>somewhat</em> catchy synth riff and... not much else, I don't have many reasons to go crazy about it.</p>

<p>As for the other songs, I can speak in favour of 'The Rhythm Of The Heat'. It tries to create a ritual on a far away land, and it sounds like Peter knows what he's talking about. But I can't see why he has to include those annoying vocal gymnastics, whispered voices and choirs so often. It makes the song sound cheesy instead of spooky, but at least the song itself is solid. It's very hushed, with only a few growling synths, Gabriel wails and percussion blasts creating the tension. And in the end, the song shifts into fifth gear, and they're joined by a <em>really</em> cool Ghanaian traditional dance, with percussions and all. <em>Great</em> way to close the song, I say. 'The Family And The Fishing Net' is based around a cool, plodding rhythm, and spooky lyrics describing an exotic ritual of matrimony. And the song itself rambles through those unnecessary vocal acrobatics and meadering verses, choruses and whatever they should be. But at least, the song has a cool sound, and achieves a great effect.</p>

<p>Then, there is the dramatic 'San Jacinto'. It's sad and atmospheric, with tingle-tingle synths and all, but it just doesn't stike me as well executed. It doesn't hold me in its grip like it should. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the song too much. And 'Lay Your Hands On Me' <em>really</em> overdoes the "dark, spooky" trick. It's like the album didn't have enough of those humming synths and E minor chord. And the chorus has that cheesy riff Tony Levin plays on his Chapman Stick and a <em>really, really, really</em> irritating chorus going "Lay your hands on me, <em>OVER MEEE-HEEE-HEEE-HEEE-HEEE-HEEEEE</em>" in the most annoying way possible. I can't stand that chorus, really.</p>

<p>Oddly, I like 'Wallflower'. It's a really beautiful, touching ballad, and it doesn't sound like a sterile experimentation with some exotic sound just for the hell of it. Maybe one of the best in here? I like it better than 'San Jacinto', at least. Beautiful, indeed. And the album ends with the Samba wannabe 'Kiss Of Life'. Maybe a cool way to release all that tension held through the entire album, but it's not a particularly impressive song in itself. Oh, well, I'd take it over 'I Have The Touch' easily. I don't know for sure, but I believe the album was quite innovative for its time, and all. Who else was experimenting so much with ethnic music?... Talking Heads, of course. <strong>Remain In Light</strong> had already been released, but this one has none of Brian Eno's spectacular, refined production tricks, David Byrne's wit and the band's natural energy. Instead, it tried to push into the exotic side of the "World Beat" movement, but how can you do it with such a lack of soul and catchy hooks? Either Peter Gabriel had the wrong notion of World Beat music, or this album shows his songwriting weaknesses. Either way, you might like this album much more than I do. I still don't give it a lower rating because I like 'The Rhythm Of The Heat' and 'Wallflower' quite a bit. UPDATE: I lowered the rating, 'cause I realise I don't like the album all that much...</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Um...<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Most times, the atmosphere is more forced than genuine.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Okay, okay, I'll give Peter Gabriel the merit he deserves for his originality.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Eh, where are the scarily catchy melodies of the previous album? Where??<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Hm, it's constantly swtiching between "cool" and "ok" and "meh".
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 7.6 = <strong class="grade">7.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? Flames? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<h2 id="so">So (1986)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>The actual best song isn't even part of the album, so I'll choose </em><big>Sledgehammer</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Red Rain</li>
  <li>Sledgehammer <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Don't Give Up <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>That Voice Again</li>
  <li>In Your Eyes</li>
  <li>Mercy Street</li>
  <li>Big Time</li>
  <li>We Do What We're Told (Milgram's 37)</li>
  <li><span class="good">This Is The Picture (Excellent Birds) ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Oh, holy. Do you know any album more annoying than this one? This is just the kind of album that critics love. This is just the kind of album that fans love. And just as much, it's the kind of album that I hate. Ok, I don't hate the album per se, but I hate what it <em>stands for</em>. You see how his previous LP dabbled so much with "World Music", right? But it was all experimental and cold, right? Well, here, Peter went the opposite way: he <em>commercialised</em> "World Music" - but not just to make a lot of money, I believe. I'm firmly sure Peter just wanted to be <em>relevant</em> in some way, so he found a brand new area to explore: "World Music".</p>

<p>My gripe is: <em>I MOTHERFUCKING HATE THIS "WORLD MUSIC" THING AND THIS MOTHERFUCKINGLY STUPID "WORLD MUSIC" LABEL AND EVERYTHING RELATED TO IT</em>. "World Music" is stupid because it simply packs all those exotic rhythms from Africa and its whereabouts into nice packages, so that artists can feed it right into their music making machines and create "different" music. Ol' Peter here is not trying to explore Africa and Latin America in search of new sounds. No, he just creates a lot of lazy songs over those funky electronic rhythms so that critics can rave about how exotic and genius it sounds. This is really a punch in my face. Of course, the album is all brilliantly produced (by Daniel Lanois, no less), but I hardly care about that.</p>

<p>And no, I don't like most of these songs. I believe many people love it because they're so catchy and uplifting and all. Maybe I'm just being overly critic, but most of these songs aren't catchy at all. Really. I guess I can open an exception to the first big hit of the album, 'Sledgehammer'. You know, this is the prime excuse to release a catchy hit single that everyone will label as "intelligent" just because of the funky brasses and the woodwind sounds. But it's still infectious in a way. But the other big hit, 'Big Time', just passes me by completely. Yes, the lyrics are clever and funny on first listen, but what else is there other than a fast "dancey" rhythm, unmelodic vocals and a dumb, predictable chorus? Nothing, really.</p>

<p>And then, you have the tamer, "cutesy" tracks: 'That Voice Again' is so sickeningly listener-friendly, I can hardly concentrate on it. And then, 'In Your Eyes' builds a stupid romantic anthem on top of a shaky "African" rhythm. And just to prove this is <em>really</em> "World Music", he adds an African female voice near the end. No, I don't take it. Even worse is 'Don't Give Up', that does a terrible thing with Kate Bush's nice vocals in the chorus. Movie music of the worst kind, this song would be enough to make me completely give up the easiest of tasks just because of one slight difficulty. Plus, in all its hushed, slow and philosophic glory, it goes on and on and on.</p>

<p>Oh, Peter, I didn't know it would take so little time for you to start doing music for old people. I can imagine 'In Your Eyes' playing on those "easy-listening" radios, that play all that crap with hysterical singers and repetitititititititive songs, occasionaly slipping in 'Sultans Of Swing' and 'Moonlight Shadow'. Oh, damn, you know this is not a nice way to treat "World Music", don't you? I hate this: reducing the "Music" of the entire "World" into one sappy thing to please critics. And if I didn't make it clear already, this "World Music" label is, many times, just an excuse to lay a song over a dancey, funky rhythm - like is the case of 'Red Rain'. I don't even like it much. Since when can this track compare to the masterpieces in his three first LPs, when it comes to originality, freshness and melodic content? I guess it's the only song here that stands both in the "commercial" area and the "experimental" area, because the rest is either commercial <em>or</em> "daring" and "experimental". And actually, the "experimental" side is mostly represented by one track: 'We Do What We're Told', that's an experiment without results. What's the deal? You create a catchy, slow percussion pattern, over which some guys sing just a few vocal lines and disappear soon after? "We do what we're told, told to do", yeah, I understand this was based on the controversial experiment of submission and obedience (the subtitle refers to the 37 people out of 40 that shown total obedience and did something they were strongly against), but what does the <em>song</em> itself tell me? Just nothing. It makes no statements and points with all its "experimentalism", and just ends with some boring words of "hope" from Peter. 'Mercy Street' is almost twice as long, though. It takes a Brazilian rhythm (the Baion, that we here call "Bai&atilde;o") and lays a slow, hushed tune on top of it. The rhythm is there, intact and unadultered, but what does the song do with it? Nothing at all.</p>

<p>To make matters worse, the only truly <em>great</em> song here wasn't even included in the original LP. 'This Is The Picture' is the only one that shows genuine influences from ethnic music and does something <em>interesting</em> and <em>cool</em> with it: Laurie Anderson and Peter Gabriel keep exchanging strange lines over this very hushed, mysterious background. There's a quite catchy line going on, and overall, the song is pretty much a song to be "watched". It's more a theatrical play than <em>music</em>, but this is still Peter Gabriel after all. Cool song, and I even think it could have been expanded and explored further.</p>

<p>Overall, the entire album is <em>extremely</em> unsatisfying. It comes and goes and leaves nothing in my mind. Yep, this was an album made just to make an impression, and he <em>succeeded</em> - I guess most people have watched the video for 'Sledgehammer', showing what high-standards this music was considered to be back then (and maybe still is). I confess I watched the video long before I first heard a solo Gabriel LP, so I was kinda partial to the song when I heard this one. Maybe if I hadn't seen the video, I wouldn't like the song at all either? I don't know. I don't even know why I'm badmouthing the album so much, actually, since I'm not going to give such a low grade. The music is pleasant and listenable (bar 'Don't Give Up', of course), but like I said in the beginning, I hate what the album <em>stands for</em>. I annoys me that Peter grabbed that "World Music" crap to insert it into a mere pop album that isn't either catchy or interesting. Honestly, I think the "World" needed some David Byrne fella to show the <em>right</em> way to do its "Music", with his band's <strong>Naked</strong> and his own's <strong>Rei Momo</strong>. David Byrne, you're <em>The Real Man</em>.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>6/10</strong></big>  - Fun? Only at parts.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>4/10</strong></big>  - Ergo.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>6/10</strong></big>  - Maybe Peter was doing something relatively "new" here, but that's being modest.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>6/10</strong></big>  - Lyrics are good most times, music is decently well made... and all.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - It has that "pleasant" aura floating around it. This doesn't mean too much, of course.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <strong class="grade">6</strong>
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:lumpy_monkey@hotmail.com">Anthony Hansen</a> (March 6, 2005):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Howdy.</p>

<p>Some comments about <strong>So</strong>: I'd seen a lot of online reviewers who had panned the album before, but your review especially struck a chord with me. I'd never considered the more colonialist aspects of Pete's work that much, but now that I read your review...jeez man, it's true, innit? Especially considering you live in Brazil, which is where a lot of so-called "world music" tends to come from. Up to this point, I'd considered the album to be right up there with his best, but reading your review makes me realize how second-hand a lot of the musical ideas are, especially considering how cleverly he'd used the ethnic (sorry, I hate that word too) elements on his previous records. So, yeah. Thanks for giving me a new perspective on things.</p>

<p>But I still love Shock The Monkey. Don't think you can make me stop liking Shock The Monkey. 'Cause you won't. <span class="edNote">[editor's note: I don't wanna sound like a flipflop, but reading what I wrote about the song again... Geez, what was I thinking? I didn't even talk about the actual <em>music</em>! The song isn't bad at all, I even like it. I guess I was frustrated with the lyrics, but the music's good.]</span></p>

<p>P.S: That is indeed Adrian Belew playing the solo on Born Under Punches, God bless him. <span class="edNote">[editor's note: Amen.]</span></p>
</div>

<p><a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Red Mail</a> is coming down, <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Red Mail</a>.</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">King Crimson</h2>

<h2 id="king">In The Court Of The Crimson King (1969)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>21st Century Schizoid Man</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">21st Century Schizoid Man ++</span></li>
  <li>I Talk To The Wind <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Epitaph <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Moonchild</li>
  <li><span class="good">In The Court Of The Crimson King ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>This is generally considered as the very beginnings of Prog Rock as a genre. And, believe me, it's very good. But... I dunno, but I'm not able to enjoy it as a <em>timeless masterpiece</em> the same way I enjoy other Prog albums, even some albums by King Crimson itself. Maybe that's just a question of taste, after all, and taste is not something to be discussed, now, it is?</p>

<p>Plus, the <em>kind</em> of Prog Rock you'll see here isn't the same kind of Prog mastered by the likes of Genesis, Yes and ELP. Close to those monstrous ELP and Yes albums, this looks like U2. Still, the album <em>did</em> set the standards for others to follow, and this <em>has</em> to be, at least, respected for being the landmark it is. Plus, I never said I <em>don't like</em> the album. I like it an awful lot, after all. Plus, I don't think there are many songs better than '21st Century Schizoid Man'. Yes, you guessed it, I'm <em>totally</em> ape about that song. And how couldn't I be? It rules! The main theme, with the raging brasses and guitars hammering out that riff, and Greg Lake going nuts with his encoded vocals, you'll have to agree with me that it totally kicks arse. Plus, the band masterfully changes it into a cool, absolutely brilliant instrumental break, with all sorts of solos and riffs and themes going at lightning speed. And at the end, when the main theme comes back with full gas, the band just goes completely nuts and washes you with a restless wave of dissonant, exploding instrument thrashing that goes away... and then comes back, even crazier and more apocalyptic than before! <em>That</em> is cool, ladies and gentlemen. Any people that dismisses Prog Rock for being "boring" should glue his ears to the speakers and blast <em>this</em> song out. Actually, I think <em>everyone</em> should do it. The world would certainly be a better place if everyone did so.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, that's the <em>only</em> spot in the album that dares to approach such level of ultimate coolness. The rest of the album is much more mellow and slow, and this kinda frustrates me - especially when I remember one of the band's biggest geniuses, Ian McDonald, would leave just after this album was released! Think of how much more cool stuff they could have done. Or maybe not. After all, this was 1969, and a <em>whole</em> album filled with stuff like '21st Century Schizoid Man' would give everyone in the planet a heart attack. Meh, stupid scared people. As a result, the other four tracks in the album are... ballads, ballads and more ballads. Well, not <em>all</em> ballads. 'Moonchild' is only a ballad when it starts, and after that, all you'll be hearing for those 10 minutes are collages of small note sequences in all kinds of instruments. You know, that kind of thing that goes "tinkle-tinkle-brr-brr-brr-clack!... ... tinkle... click-click-click-doo-dee-doo-dee... tink... clack-clack" ad infinitum. In 1969, such a thing must have been really daring and cool, but these days? It's kinda boring, you know. Useless, too. Fortunately, the title track is one <em>gorgeous</em> ballad, with beautiful themes and flute playing everywhere, that ends in an intense note, with guitars raging behind the sweet Mellotron theme. Cool stuff.</p>

<p>Still, the two remaining tracks are pure ballads. Good ones, though. 'I Talk To The Wind' is as sweet and cute as it could ever be, if a little too long. I don't mind, though, and I really like the song. I've heard better ballads, but I've heard worse, as well. Finally, the classic 'Epitaph' is as overblown and dramatic as it could ever be, but hey, it's <em>good</em>. It may be insincere as Hell, but hey, Prog Rock rarely tried to be sincere! Plus, there is Greg Lake in the vocals, and some really great work with woodwinds. Anyway, I don't know why I'm being so defensive for that song. I don't worship it, like some other people do, anyway. Still, this is an album for everyone to own, if only for the absolute coolness of '21st Century Schizoid Man'. Dude, that's one brilliant song. Blast <em>this</em> one out loud to scare the fuck out of your neighbours!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Discounting one point for 'Moonchild', and a few other minor complaints.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Well, here lies trouble. Aside from the Godlike, Ultimate coolness of '21st Century Schizoid Man', everything is very fake. Well, it's Prog Rock, isn't it?<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Ha! Ha! Ha!<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Again, 'Moonchild' takes the blame.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Perhaps, it could have been a 10.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <strong class="grade">9</strong>
</p>

<p>Eh, do you think I'd avoid the joke of the '21st Century Schizoid <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail</a>'?</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="lizard">Lizard (1971)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Lizard</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Cirkus <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Indoor Games <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Happy Family <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Lady Of The Dancing Water</li>
  <li><span class="good">Lizard ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>And this is the album everyone hates - even Fripp himself! Well, and it's not hard to see why. Being on his own, now, Fripp decided to assume some sort of identity, and led his band towards Free Jazz and wild experimentation. So a lot of the album is taken over by horns and woodwinds soloing wildly, drums going "rat-ta-tat" all over the place, and guitars playing quiet runs of atonal noise here and there. Overall, this is quite brainy and intellectual music, understand, and there's quite a lot of atonal stuff here. But some people don't seem to accept that, and condemn the album as unlistenable atonal crap. Honestly, I can't quite understand it: when I heard the album, I found out it was quite tame, compared to what I expected it to be. Maybe I expected it too much? Or maybe I'm used to it because I'm a musician? I don't know.</p>

<p>But maybe the truth is that the album does a lot of missteps here, and some people don't forgive that easily. They have a point: mainly, the album's two biggest flaws are, to put it bluntly, the lyrics and the singing. Pete Sinfield goes on a "Mediaeval" mode here, with highly adorned and mystical words and stuff, but for the most part, the lyrics just plain suck. Was there some kind of artistic intention behind all this? If there was, I don't care: one thing is artistic intention, and other thing is <em>the art itself</em>. About the vocals, well... as a singer, Gordon Haskell was a quite good bassist. To tell you the truth, though, he wasn't a <em>bad</em> singer: he sang on tune, hit the right notes, had a solid voice... but his <em>voice</em> was completely inadequate for this kind of music, and they don't fit in with the rest of the band <em>at all</em>. It's his <em>voice</em>, not his <em>singing</em>, that's the main problem. But even then, like that's not enough, Fripp and his band insisted in placing obnoxious sounds and things in the music, like the ridiculously super-dumb synth tone used halfway through 'Indoor Games', the Dawn Syndrome laughter at the end of the same song (followed by a horribly annoying delay effect that makes it twice as obnoxious), and the retarded synth playing on 'Happy Family', that sounds like a kid trying to play the "Mission: Impossible" theme on a broken synthesizer with a stupid tape effect. In fact, 'Happy Family' is quite idiotic as a song. Here, all the wild soloing, piano runs and stuff sounds just random and make no sense at all, and in the end, sound just plain grating and not "complex", like it should be. Like that wasn't enough, Gordon's voice runs through a horrible tremolo tape effect that makes it a <em>real</em> pain in the arse. And the lyrics? If it's true that the lyrics are a parable about the Beatles, then it must be the worse Beatle-related text ever written, and makes even the most drugged-out ramblings by Lennon look sane.</p>

<p>Not as bad, but equally dismissable, is 'Lady Of The Dancing Water'. Seriously, if there is any kind of award like "Most Irrelevant Acoustic Ballad Ever", 'Lady Of The Dancing Water' gets it. It sounds <em>exactly</em> like what you would expect to hear from a song called 'Lady Of The Dancing Water' placed on an avantgarde album filled with Mediaeval motifs, just to show the "sensitive" and "sentimental" side of the band. Plus, Gordon's voice doesn't give it any kind of charm. BUT... amazingly, there <em>are</em> good things in here, and they happen when the band's playing has a sense of <em>focus</em> and direction. That happens in the album opener, 'Cirkus'. It has cool classical guitar contrasting with a heavy two-note riff, dramatic Mellotron passages and sung verses. It's majorly interesting and beautiful. And most people may disagree with me, but I like 'Indoor Games' quite a lot. The brass work-outs are quite fun to hear, there is even a certain flavour of <em>humour</em> in that riff, and the sung verses aren't dismissable at all. There's also some really cool soloing by brasses and guitars, unfortunately followed by that ridiculous synth tone I mentioned before.</p>

<p>Those four tracks are on side one, naturally, because side two is taken up by the 23-minute title track (because King Crimson HAD to have a 20+ minute track). And it's quite great, really. The first noteworthy thing about it is the presence of Jon Anderson. Yes, you read that right: JON ANDERSON. And he's singing a very pleasant and beautiful song, titled "Prince Rupert Awakes", right on the beginning of the piece. But of course, it's the only apparition of something close to "pop" on the album: after that, the band creates some sort of marching rhythm, taken over by more brasses, cool pianos and all that. When it ends, things go grim, Gordon Haskell sings some grim verses, and... MORE brasses come in for some real cool, aggressive jammin' and cookin' with a rumbling riff and stuff. Quite cool to hear, and the guitar solo that follows it makes a quite cool, typically Frippesque, dirge, before they transform it into some silly campground music that speeds up all the way till it fades out. Weird, huh? Well, I like it.</p>

<p>Ok, now that the whole world disagreed with me, I'll say that I really don't <em>recommend</em> this album. I like it myself, and I give it a rating of 7, but I won't tell anyone to rush out and buy the album. People who are truly digging the band and find the album cheap somewhere should definitely give it a try: it's, at least, <em>interesting</em>. But remember that a lot of people dislike it, so maybe you should listen to them? Maybe not? Of course, you may listen to Fripp, who hates the album too. But I guess he just hates it because he and his band did a lot of much better stuff later on!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - There <em>are</em> things I dislike on the record, and things that I don't care about (the two-minute ballad 'Lady Of The Dancing Water' sounds <em>EXACTLY</em> the way you should expect a song like that to sound), but they aren't too many.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>6/10</strong></big>  - I don't <em>quite</em> get a lot of excitement from this stuff, but there are really cool moments.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Well, Frippman <em>was</em> trying!<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - But then again, maybe you shouldn't trust me.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Nothing too remarkable here.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 7.2 = <strong class="grade">7</strong>
</p>

<p>Stake a lizard by the <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="islands">Islands (1972)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Islands</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Formentera Lady</li>
  <li>The Sailor's Tale <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Letters <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Ladies Of The Road</li>
  <li><span class="good">Prelude: Song Of The Gulls ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Islands ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Enough with "Free Jazz", Fripp goes Orchestral? So it seems. Well... he didn't exactly get <em>enough</em> of Free Jazz. What he got enough from was Gordon Haskell, who was sacked and replaced by Boz Burrell, or someone else. You see, there <em>is</em> still something like Free Jazz here, or whatever. It's just less focused towards that. The truth is, Fripp was just trying to use different tools to the same purpose: create that academic, "avant-garde" music that serves to go against rules and boundaries of music through methods easily shown with mathematical equations and diagrams. You know, listening to this album, it's <em>very</em> clear that Fripp was writing music that was challenging and difficult, but doing so carefully and meticulously, reading books and making notes with pencil on paper, and then gathering an orchestra and making them do strange things with their instruments. This is not the kind of spontaneous, wild, nitroglycerinic music that Captain Beefheart was doing with his Magic Band. Fripp is researching, not experimenting.</p>

<p>And so, many people think the album is boring as hell. And I respect their opinion. The truth is that I like the album. Quite a bit. That is, more than <strong>Lizard</strong>. And why? Well, because here, Fripp has a bigger hit/miss ratio. And the biggest hits are at the end of the album, in those two <em>beautiful</em> tracks. Of course, it's that academic, intellectual kind of beauty, but it's beauty nonetheless: <em>lots</em> of it! Firstly, there's 'Song Of The Gulls', a neo-classical piece for orchestra that follows those old rules and patterns quite strictly, but the tune itself is wonderful. Really, truly a beautiful work, and it works wonders as the "Prelude" to the title track, the nine-minute centrepiece of the album. And it's truly, genuinely fantastic. Most of it is taken over by gorgeous piano, and soft sung verses with lyrics by Pete Sinfield that <em>make sense</em>, and evoke beautiful images. It's truly relaxing and evocative, and the careful use of instruments is delicate and precise: some oboe, some organ, some clarinet, some cornet, and it only builds up somewhat in the end, with Mellotron and the cornet playing beautifully on top. It's really a great composition.</p>

<p>But on the opposite side of the album, we have 'Formentera Lady': for the beginning, it uses an orchestra to make really strange sounds, and then Boz Burrell enters with some verses about anything, and the song alternates the orchestral passages with "groovy" jazzy thingies with bass and all. But it only shows its true face when the verses end, and the musicians are invited to make "avantgarde" sounds on top of it. So far so good, but Boz starts singing "operatic" vocals with an awful "female" falsetto that sounds absolutely ridiculous. Those out-of-tune wailings aren't either beautiful, either avantgarde, and just ruin the effect. Of course, everything going on behind it is pretty much unremarkable, and the entire song is.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the band finds its pace after the track ends, and engages into a jazzy jam in 'The Sailor's Tale'. Naturally, it's nothing on the heights of '21st Century Schizoid Man', but Frippman does some cool noise with his guitar, there's some rockin' work in there, and even the ending is quite schizophrenic. Cool stuff, but it's hardly all that horrible, unlistenable atonal noise fest that many say it is. I was even quite underwhelmed when I listened to it, considering what I heard. I was thinking "THIS is all the unlistenable noise?", but when I stopped thinking about that, I really enjoyed the piece. The only moment when the band gets together to make some noise is in 'The Letters', a most interesting composition. The lyrics tell a tale of adultery (in those highly adorned words of Pete Sinfield, of course), and Boz whispers those lyrics in a haunting minor-key melody. Afterwards, follows some really cool (but slow!) work on horns and guitar, culminating in one of those noisy, highly dissonant brief passages. It's like "Come on, let's give up all this sissy pretentious jazz thing and make some NOISE" after all this time, and it ends with Boz really screaming the lyrics, until the song dies a painful death, with his singing falling into absolute silence. Well, there you are!</p>

<p>The remaining song is quite weak, to tell you the truth. 'Ladies Of The Road' has the guys trying to do something "naughty" and "mysoginistic", but it sounds so timid, shameful and red-faced, the only really remarkable things about the song are the fun harmonies in the chorus and the instrumental soloing, that's just a watered-down version of the cool workings of 'Indoor Games' and the like. But when you have 'Song Of The Gulls' and 'Islands', it's hard not to respect the album. The rest of it can be quite underwhelming, but count me as satisfied. Besides, Fripp was just finding his way of working. The band would change very soon, and it would change <em>radically</em>. If all this "research" lead into King Crimson as we know it today, then I have no reason to complain.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Yeah, talk about it! I like this stuff!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Ehh, this is extremelly academic at most times, but it has its cool, gorgeous moments.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Fripp was still trying. While the orchestra sounds gimmicky at times, it's also nifty many times.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - I can't deny that. Fripp was trying hard.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Quite up-and-down at times, but it holds up well in the end.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 7.6 = <strong class="grade">7.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? Flames? Hate-mail? DO NOT <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">MAIL ME</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="aspic" class="best">Larks' Tongues In Aspic (1973)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</big><em>, both parts.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Larks' Tongues In Aspic, part 1 ++</span></li>
  <li>Book Of Saturday <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Exiles <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Easy Money ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Talking Drum ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Larks' Tongues In Aspic, part 2 ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>And here comes the transformation. It's a known fact that, in practically every album, Fripp changed the line-up of the band. And this was a complete reformulation, but it was definitely for the better! Much better, in fact! Both the line-up is excellent, but Fripp finally decided to leave the approach of the two previous albums and let his imagination completely loose here. As a result, most of this album is an onslaught of awesome, irresistible and well-crafted noise that becomes almost addictive with repeated listens.</p>

<p>Of course, "noise" is a very banal definition for this stuff. Mind you, this is truly improvisational <em>music</em>, but it's strong and agressive, sometimes loud, sometimes subtle, but always entertaining. The best showcase for that is the title track, split in two parts. The first part is an excellent place to hear their clever contrasts between "eerily quiet" and "motherfuckingly rocking", sometimes leaving strange percussion sounds circling some marimbas (Jamie Muir was the percussionist here, and he did percussion with <em>anything</em>), sometimes leaving David Cross play extremely creepy things in his violin, but most times, bringing the entire band to bash and slash some awesome jams, blurt out a monster riff, or just go completely wild! The drummer here is Bill Bruford, and it's easy to see how well he got adapted to this wild style of playing, and John Wetton uses the bass in a very agressive way, making it growl loudly all the way through. But when this is a piece of contrasts, the second part is just loud, awesome jamming all the way through! Fripp plays an awesome one-chord riff (you can headbang to it), followed by the band's maniacal rhythm section. In between the loud guitar portions, you have David's violin again, rising and rising. It's amazing how they make a tense musical moment become <em>even tenser</em>, culminating in another cool Fripp riff, and eventually, an incredibly freaky violin solo. On the end, the rising violin pattern comes again, but it seems to go on forever, until Bill Bruford's drum rolls seem to fade away, and the whole band comes in for THE LOUDEST, AWESOMEST, FURIOUSEST CODA THEY EVER MADE, ending everything <em>for good</em>.</p>

<p>I'm sorry for raving on so much. It's just that this music is so wild, awesome and disarming, it's almost impossible to "describe" it in a sane way. You'll understand it when you hear it. But then, we must not forget that there are other four tracks here. They're not in the same wild style of the title tracks, but this is good, since it creates contrast. And the two other tracks on side A are very beautiful! 'Book Of Saturday' is often overlooked for being so short and so quiet, amidstso much noise, but I actually love it. It's nothing but a nice guitar ballad, with beautiful verses, cool backward-guitar soloing and nice violins. It's beautiful, I like it. 'Exiles' is longer and more "epic", but it's also great, for its main melody and the soothing, touching instrumentation backing Wetton's sung verses. You'll face some freaky noisy sections among the way, but they help build the tension, and make the beautiful sections even more beautiful.</p>

<p>Side B sends all this "beauty" to hell, though. Well, this album <em>isn't</em> <strong>In The Court Of The Crimson King</strong>, after all! And instead of 'Moonchild', you have two awesome songs: 'Easy Money' is just plain eccentric, with Muir making good use of his freaky percussion style (paper being torn, metallic bangs and much more), Wetton "scat singing" in between some funny sung verses, making way for a long, excellent solo by Fripp. Yeah, this song is <em>his</em> own personal showcase, but he's a master guitarist, after all, and the whole band contributes something, too. The song ends with a weird sound of laughter, and then comes another <em>excellent</em> instrumental composition: 'The Talking Drum'. Now, I mentioned there are some excellent build-ups in the title track, but <em>this</em> track pretty much <em>is</em> an immense build-up, and it must be heard to be believed. It beings with faint sounds of a trumpet immitating a fly (I think), and percussion sounds (that may or may not be an actual talking drum), and then a bass groove begins taking shape. Over that groove, David lays his violin wanderings and Fripp joins in, later, with his stingy guitar. But the groove grows and develops in a scary way, getting louder with every small fill, gaining some furious cymbal splashing, guitar growling, more percussion... Oh, it's useless. This is simply the scariest song they did to this point, but it's <em>fun</em> in a wicked way. It's scary, but it's so eccentric and weird, it's almost fun. But when the final note comes by, we're left with an unbearable fest of shrieking trumpets, and if <em>this</em> doesn't freak you out completely, you must be deft. And after that, comes part two of 'Larks' Tongues In Aspic'... If this isn't awesome, nothing is.</p>

<p>So, this is the <em>real</em> triumph of King Crimson's "Free Jazz" thing. But the fun thing is that their Free Jazz seems very well married with the Prog Rock thing of the day, so it <em>rocks</em> in an intelligent manner! Ha, I say. When intellectuals want to have fun and headbang a little, I bet they put <em>this</em> one in their stereos. Oh, I should stop talking about intellectuals, shouldn't I? This album doesn't please only intellectuals: it's for everyone! It's rockin' Free Jazz for the masses, and a bit more. It's a masterpiece, a Prog Rock classic, and one of my favourite records ever, too. Buy this one and stop being a wussy.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Phat!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - I can't explain, but these jams are <em>really</em> cool.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - No doubt on that.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - It's filled to the brim with coolness.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Can't be different, either.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <strong class="ten">10</strong>
</p>

<p>Comments? Ideas? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="black">Starless And Bible Black (1974)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Fracture</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">The Great Deceiver ++</span></li>
  <li>Lament</li>
  <li>We'll Let You Know</li>
  <li>The Night Watch <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Trio</li>
  <li>The Mincer</li>
  <li>Starless And Bible Black</li>
  <li><span class="good">Fracture ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Jamie Muir left the band shortly after <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong> was released, and so, the band by then was Fripp/Wetton/Cross/Bruford. In case you didn't notice, those guys were <em>really</em> good players, as in <em>REALLY</em> good players. They also weren't interested in being limited by rules and traditions and all that GAY stuff that only QUEERS care about (that's not <em>me</em> speaking, mind). They liked to make improvised performances on stage: you know, one would start playing something on his instrument, others would slowly join, and they'd try to go somewhere with their performance. It's obviously not an easy thing to do that, and King Crimson seemed to be <em>really</em> fond of that. So, in this album, along with a few compositions of their own, they included a couple of takes from live improvisations.</p>

<p>I can't say much more about it: I can't judge whether it was a good decision to create "compositions" out of those performances and make an album with them. Many people like them, and enjoy listening to that stuff. After all, it's, at least, interesting to hear what they can make on-the-spot. But it's not easy to tell if you'll like this album or not if you listen to it: even if you might like their style of playing and liked <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>, these tracks here might seem completely aimless and boring. Yeah, their sound is very similar to <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>, with the same heavy, slow rhythms, the growling guitars, Bill Bruford's drumming, John Wetton's bass and the interesting mix of violin and Mellotron, and everything else. Of course, it just doesn't have the eccentric percussion, so that's a shame. But I like this stuff. Listening to this, I feel the band wasn't trying to make some powerful statement or indulge in their amazing playing skills: they were just trying to make something cool, to create a groove. I might be wrong, but I have no problems with this music. I can enjoy it just fine.</p>

<p>They're not stellar, though. These guys can do good stuff when improvising, but it's <em>hard</em> to get on the same level of 'Larks' Tongues In Aspic', or 'The Talking Drum'. I guess the guys' strength when making music was not just maing cool, difficult sounds: the music in <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong> affected the emotions too. You remember how 'The Talking Drum' sounded absolutely <em>EVIL</em> in its gradual build-up, and how part two of 'Larks' Tongues In Aspic' was a real Mammoth of a song? When improvising, the guys could handle their business quite well, but without a vision or idea in common, their playing didn't really took you to places, or made you feel scary things. It's intelligent and impressive musicmaking, of course, but it's mostly that. But I have to say, I <em>do</em> enjoy music like that to some extent. And that's why I like this album. You might not like it, but I understand it.</p>

<p>Of course, I like the compositions more. As such, 'The Great Deceiver' is one of the best here, absolutely corrosive and aggressive with its lyrics about Fripp's visit to the Vatican (motivating him to write his first and only bit of lyrics: "Cigarettes, ice-cream, figurines of the Virgin Mary"). It sounds just the way it should sound, alternating speedy parts with slower, darker ones, but always with an evil grin on its face. 'Lament' starts slow and melancholic, with lyrics about kids playing guitar and all, but soon becomes another plodding, angry rocker. And 'The Night Watch' is the only ballad of the set, and it's a good one. It has a big, loud introduction, but John Wetton soon joins with his mellow voice. Very beautiful song, overall.</p>

<p>And the rest of the album is all instrumental - apart from a few sung lines on 'The Mincer'. And the only of those instrumental tracks that isn't improvised is the final one, 'Fracture', and it pretty much shows the difference between King Crimson's compositions and improvisations I tried to explain a few paragraphs ago. The song is extremelly well structured, with a pounding riff, an insanely complicated arpeggio Fripp keeps doing, and a little riff that makes me think of The Simpsons' main theme ( :-) ). There's a big build-up of tension, and a great, loud finale. It's a very enjoyable song, I says. As for the improvisations, there's 'We'll Let You Know', based on a quite funky groove. Of course, like basically every improvisation here, it begins sparse and broken, until all instruments come together in the end. And there's 'The Mincer', that's similar, but more "creepy" sounding. There's the sparse initial section, but when the drums burst in, the tape runs out, and the song just cracks away. Yeah, they ran out of tape when they were recording the song live, but I guess the band found it cool and left it like that. 'Starless And Bible Black' is the longest one, and has the "dark" setting that the title suggests. The build-up is cool and well-performed, and the ending is good too. It's also fun to hear how David Cross plays <em>two</em> different sounds on the Mellotron (strings and woodwinds), not to mention the violin. Yeah, good, but still there were a few screws to tighten before they could record 'Providence'. I guess the most unusual one here is 'Trio'. It features no drums, and it's just bass guitar, violin and Mellotron. It's gentle, mellow, and quite pleasant to listen to.</p>

<p>I reckon I was expecting something worse when I listened to this. So, I can say I'm quite satisfied with the album. It's not a masterpiece by no means, but come on, the band had <em>just</em> done <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>, which IS a masterpiece - and they were about to make <em>another</em> one. I can't see why I should feel bad about this album.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Yes, I can say I enjoy it quite a bit.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - This isn't as <em>cool</em> as the band's best works, though it is interesting.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - The band is minding their own business, and that is what they did best.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - The best stuff is mostly concentrated on the actual compositions.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Yeah, uh huh.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.2 = <strong class="grade">8</strong>
</p>

<p>Cigarettes, ice-cream, figurines of the <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Virgin Mail</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="red">Red (1976)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Red</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Red ++</span></li>
  <li>Fallen Angel <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>One More Red Nightmare <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Providence</li>
  <li><span class="good">Starless ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>By this time, King Crimson was reduced from a 5-piece band to a 3-piece band, being them Fripp (well, duh), Wetton and Bruford. Still, we have guest appearances by David Cross (yay) and even <em>Ian McDonald</em> (double yay), of all people. Thus, while the main "bulk" of the band's sound is the drums/bass/guitar combo, we still have those violins, saxophones and Melltron of old.</p>

<p>For some reason, this is a far less "nutty" album than <strong>Smelly Tongues (looked just as they felt) In Aspic</strong>. Maybe the band didn't want to spend so much time in improvisations on studio, and concentrated on writing actual traditional <em>songs</em>... even though there is one improvised track on here. 'Providence' starts off with some violin and bass, before it becomes a straight bass/guitar/drums thing halfway through. Well, it's improvised, but that menacing, gloomy mood makes it quite enjoyable. In fact, that menacing, gloomy mood runs through the <em>entire</em> album, and is one of its biggest features. The arrangements, the instruments' sounds... you know. This is King Crimson creating a mood. Still, King Crimson doesn't provide us with those nutty, freaky things, like they did on <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>. Thus, this album doesn't happen to be as breathtakingly spectacular and <em>interesting</em> as that one. The album is not as <em>fun</em>, too. It is highly <em>enjoyable</em>, and surely excellent, but it's not as fun... Oh, what the heck, it's more conventional. There, I said it. </p>

<p>Conventional or not, the title track is a total masterpiece of a song. It goes verse-chorus-verse-chorus, but it's an instrumental, y'see. The trick is that those <em>riffs</em> Fripp blasts out of his guitar are sheer genius. Those chord changes, that bowed bass in the middle break, the ascending lines opening and closing the track... This is one of the best songs ever written, in my humble opinion. It rules, and I love it with all my heart cavities. This is <em>HARD ROCK</em>, but intelligently written and performed. 'Fallen Angel' is a ballad, but not your average 'I Talk To The Wind'. This is a dramatic, sad, gloomy ballad, and Fripp does a great job in complimenting Wetton's singing with those beautiful guitar lines. Still, in the chorus, a complicated guitar arpeggio kicks in, and the song goes on a very intense mood, led by guitars and trumpets. Maybe these loud sections go for too long, and make the song lose a bit of its impact. Still, it has an unusual beauty, for King Crimson, and deserves merit. And then, 'One More Red Nightmare' is something quite unique for the band. It has an upbeat, bouncy rhythm, and a quite humourous atmosphere. Wetton sings about fear of flying, while the band blasts out some simple, catchy riffs and Bruford thrashes the drumkit in the most imaginative ways. And those handclaps! It's so odd to hear the Crimson guys clapping to that groovy rhythm. Of course, they just <em>had</em> do include some soloing in the middle, but it has Ian McDonald on the saxophone, and the whole atmosphere of the song is so exciting and fun, I just can't help giving it a thumbs up.</p>

<p>It may be true that the songs kind of lose their direction when those big jams come in, but you'll just have to cope with it. After all, they were great players, and here, they <em>were</em> aiming towards an actual mood and feeling with their improvisations, which was not the case with <strong>Starless And Bible Black</strong>, where they tried to <em>see</em> where their improvisations were going. I have mentioned 'Providence' already, and it shows perfectly how they <em>did</em> have the common vision to turn the improvisation into something scary and cool. It's a good one, I like it. Last but not least, the album is closed by another of the band's best songs ever. 'Starless' is another unique item in the band's catalog. Beginning soft and mellow, with a gorgeous guitar line, a beautiful set of vocal melodies and that Mellotron washing softly. Three verses, and the mood changes... There is a build up, based on a one-note line by Fripp. You know, you don't see Fripp playing one-note lines everyday, and the effect it causes here is breathtaking. Once again proving their skills with tension building, the band takes the song into a hell of a transition, until the guitar is squealing, the bass is growling, and the drums are thumping mad. And when it seems like it's gonna last forever, the band winds up everything nicely with some sax soloing, bringing back the opening themes of the song. Hey, that's a great song. I like it when the band does unexpected stuff, like that.</p>

<p>And as history tells us, the band parted ways. I don't know whether this was a good or a bad thing, so don't dare to ask me. Still, a great album this is, and definitely worth checking out if you're getting into the band.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Yup, you heard it.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - King Crimson were never "touching" or "arse-kicking", but they are just <em>so</em> cool on here.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Like, King Crimson does nothing new. But they do it <em>well</em>.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Absolutely.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - No complaints.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.6 = <strong class="grade">9.5</strong>
</p>

<p><a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mailless</a> and Windows White!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="discipline">Discipline (1981)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Elephant Talk</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Elephant Talk ++</span></li>
  <li>Frame By Frame</li>
  <li><span class="good">Matte Kudasai ++</span></li>
  <li>Indiscipline <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Thela Hun Ginjeet ++</span></li>
  <li>The Sheltering Sky <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Discipline <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>King Crimson disbanded... but they returned! Yeah, baby, Robert Fripp is in da house, and he's kicking arse (metaphorically speaking). He probably got so excited with the whole New Wave thang, and with playing with Talking Heads ('I Zimbra', remember?), that he brought in a blistering crew to create... a pseudo New Wave album. There's Adrian Belew here, on the guitars and vocals. Yup, you read <em>guitars</em>. Fripp got a second guitarist to the band, and they do quite a darned good job. Tony Levin is hired for the bass duties, and for the drums, nobody but Bill Bruford in person.</p>

<p>The approach of this "new" King Crimson is <em>nothing</em> like what we've heard so far. Like I said, this is a pseudo New Wave album. "Pseudo", because, while I'll never be able to tell what <em>is</em> New Wave, the album definitely hasn't the same aims as Talking Heads did, or The Police, or any other New Wave band. This is <em>academic</em> music. In the sense that, this sounds like Art Rock done by scientists. The sound is quite squeaky and thin, with the guitars going clean and twangy, the electronic drums going all polyrhythmical and frenzied (is that Bill Bruford I hear? He's unrecognisable!), and the bass... Oh, the bass. The bass is responsible for all those funky rhythms and grooves. In short... you could say King Crimson is similar to Talking Heads... but this is <em>far</em> from Talking Heads. Like I said, it sounds like it was made by scientists, not Psycho Killers.</p>

<p>Okay, let's take a closer look... Most of these songs are very repetitive. The guys find a theme, and repeat it several times. Of course, the themes aren't any trivial. Most times, it is based on the mind-boggling guitar interplay by Fripp and Belew. 'Elephant Talk', for example, the album's "signature" song, is based on an atonal guitar theme blasted out by Fripp, while Belew adds all those bendy chords and elephant-like noises - everything set to an almost danceable rhythm. Don't believe me? Listen to it! There are the lyrics, of course, that consists of Adrian belting out synonyms to the word "talk", doing so in an hilariously pompous way. <em>That</em> is the academic Art College approach I'm talking about. 'Thela Hun Ginjeet' is similar, but not equal: it's faster, more frenzied, more bouncy, and has some gibberish lyrics and a recording of Adrian telling a story about being hassled by thugs. There are all those cool guitar noises, too, also courtesy of Belew. But the rhythm section is the big star on here.</p>

<p>Two tracks consist the brief "conceptuality" of the album: 'Indiscipline' and 'Discipline'. The latter basically sums up the main ideas of the album, with a repetitive, but mesmerising rhythm and a big set of guitar lines playing against each other. That's the brilliant guitar interplay, for you. Yep, the song is pretty darn cool. Its counterpoint, 'Indiscipline', goes completely against the rules and mixes loud, almost chaotic bashing passages with 100% Frippesque guitars, that go back to <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>, with Adrian reading a letter, saying things like "I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repe". I like the way it finishes, with Adrian blasting out "I like it!" just as the instruments come to a halt. And that's that. The other songs are less nutty, but not less deserving of mentioned. 'Frame By Frame' is the track where all the "guitar interplay" ideas are molded in a more conventional song structure, with a rather catchy vocal line. It lacks the "nutty" hilariousness of 'Elephant Talk', for example, but that's the only quibble. 'The Sheltering Sky' is a <em>really</em> repetitive, <em>really</em> slow, <em>really</em> long atmospheric instrumental, with a very weird guitar tone, but damn, do I like that mood. I enjoy that song entirely. Now call me a dork. Finally, 'Matte Kudasai' is nothing more than a little pop ballad stuck in the album. King Crimson "purists" might complain about the song's presence, but just like I liked my 'Book Of Saturday' in my <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>, I enjoy this one here. Plus, it's far more gorgeous and exuberant than 'Book Of Saturday'. Love it or shove it.</p>

<p>There isn't much more to be said. Just remember: if you're used only to the 70's sound of King Crimson, and you don't know your Talking Heads very well, you'll have a <em>shock</em>. But enough Heads comparisons. This is <em>NOT</em> Talking Heads. This <em>is</em> King Crimson, just presenting their essence under a very different light. Cool stuff, anyway.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Yes, fun is what this album is.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Well, err... I'm not sure on this one.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Oh, King Crimson are still King Crimson after all.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Certainly they hadn't lost their sense of songwriting.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Those songs center an specific purpose and mood, y'know, and they all work.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.4 = <strong class="grade">9.5</strong>
</p>

<p>It's only <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">talk</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="thrak">THRAK (1995)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Dinosaur</big><em>, but I actually don't know.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>VROOM <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Coda: Marine 475</li>
  <li>Dinosaur <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Walking On Air <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>B'Boom</li>
  <li>THRAK</li>
  <li>Inner Garden I</li>
  <li>People</li>
  <li>Radio I</li>
  <li>One Time <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Radio II</li>
  <li>Inner Garden II</li>
  <li>Sex Sleep Eat Drink Dream <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>VROOM VROOM <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>VROOM VROOM: Coda</li>
</ol>

<p>Yeah, I know I skipped several years and a couple of important albums, but what can I do? I didn't inherit John Peel's LP collection. But for the unitiated, well, this is <em>yet another</em> incarnation of King Crimson, albeit it's basically just an alteration of the previous formation. What happened here is that Fripp called Trey Gunn and Pat Mastelotto, for bass and drums respectively. As a result, we have two trios of guitar, drums and bass. How cool is that? Quite a lot, eh? But don't set your expectations too high. Why? Well, because this stuff isn't too hot, really. The thing is, I can't put my finger on it, but <em>something here doesn't feel quite right</em>. It sounds like there's something missing in the band... Inspiration? Motivation? Must be something, because the music they present here is <em>way</em> too... standard, in the way that nothing here will <em>COMPLETELY BLOW YOU AWAY</em>... unless you never heard of King Crimson before, and started out with this album.</p>

<p>But I didn't start out with it. I started out with <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>, I did. And this album is quite frustrating. Just look there: <em>15</em> tracks. 15. 56 minutes and a half. And yet, there's so little <em>substance</em>. You know?  I look at the gigantic track listing, and after several listens, I can't understand what happened. I just guess the band isn't quite what it used to be. But then, Robert Fripp remarked that King Crimson isn't a band, and that it's "a way to do things".</p>

<p>So what way is it? Once upon a time, they would do really challenging, groundbreaking music that could scare anyone in the audience. In this album, it looks like they are making scary music for children's cartoons. The sound is very polished, the production is bright, every peak and every valley of every waveform in the CD is as perfect as it could be, and everything sounds terribly inadequate and just <em>wrong</em> in a mysterious way. See, there are two instrumentals built on similar elements, that serve as bookmarks to the album: 'VROOM' and 'VROOM VROOM' (in ALL CAPITALS!). The first track left me slightly puzzled - it sounded nice, but I had a feeling of d&egrave;ja vu on the back of my mind. "Weird", I thought. But the instant 'VROOM VROOM' came by, I realized what it was: the song is a total rewrite of 'Red'! Seriously. This is no exaggeration. Every structural element of 'Red' is there, even the low-pitched grumbling melody over the chopping staccato guitar chords. It's not like I condemn them for that, after all, they're just writing a song based on a formula they created, and 'Red' <em>is</em> one of the best things ever. But 'VROOM VROOM' relates to 'Red' in the same way Mike Oldfield's <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong> relates to the '73 original: it sounds limp, synthetic and fake. 'VROOM' uses a couple of riffs from its older brother, but at least, it has a very amusing Bluesy rhythm, and instead of the ridiculous immitation of 'Red's awesome interlude, it has a really cool guitar line tinkling over a quiet background.</p>

<p>Notice the "codas" of the two pieces: 'Marine 475' hammers away eternally descending chords, with freaky guitar sounds going on top. It's the kind of thing that needs to be played LOUD to be enjoyed. The 'VROOM VROOM' coda, though, isn't even actual part of the song. It comes by after some good 30 silent seconds, and thumps ascending chords on a slower tempo. Not mindblowing stuff, though. That's the thing: those two pieces aren't even a third as mindblowing as anything in <strong>Red</strong>. Even the two other instrumental pieces in the album: 'B'Boom' and 'THRAK', with form somewhat of a small suite. The first one is a drum duet, that kicks in after one minute of whizzing up-and-down dissonant synth strings, but that turns into a real cool "tribal" banging on a quite untrivial rhythm. You know, it <em>is</em> a drum solo, but it's not bad. When it ends, 'THRAK' bursts in, and in a quite awesome way: that initial theme is basically two guitars going "THRAK THRAK!... THRAK! TH-THRAKATHRAK!... THRAK!" in different rhythms, but that's mostly it. What follows is a string of improvisations until they hit the initial theme again, to close the song for good. It's worth mentioning that the improvisation in the middle of the track were extended <em>for good</em> in live performances, and the band would compile an entire album of improvised performances bookended by 'THRAK' - the dreaded <strong>THRaKaTTaK</strong>.</p>

<p>I guess the thing that sounds "wrong" with these pieces is that the band is <em>undecided</em> about them. It sounds like they don't want to do them, and weren't in the mood to come up with cool ideas for instrumental pieces. I mean, two guitars battling with a series of "THRAK!s" is an interesting idea, but is it enough to hold an entire piece together?  Perhaps if the concept were expanded into something bigger... but it looks (to me) like <em>something</em> was stopping them from expanding it. What what was it? I have no idea, honestly. So, with all those instrumental pieces there, we're left with a couple of so-called "songs" and a few really silly "intermezzos" ('Radio', with more of those whizzing up-and-down dissonant synth strings, and 'Inner Garden', a pair of pretty Belew ballads for guitar and voice) inserted there God-knows-why. Fortunately, those songs <em>are</em> good. But looking at that big track list, there seems to be so <em>few</em> of them. Is that optical illusion? I guess. Damn that Robert Fripp! I shake my fist at you!</p>

<p>Okay, songs? More specifically, there are five of them, and a few of them were released on an EP prior to this one, <strong>VROOM</strong> (in ALL CAPITALS!). 'Dinosaur' is the longest of them, something of a prog-pop-rock piece with angry sounding guitars, mean Adrian singing, interesting sideways lyrics, and a lot of fiddling with a synthetic orchestra - there's an entire interlude devoted to the electronic woodwinds and strings! The song is a goody, though. 'Sex Sleep Eat Drink Dream' is a groovy, fun song. It's not exactly catchy, as there isn't a remarkable hook anywhere, but the contrasts between the funky synchopated "choruses" and the loud, bashing "verses" are great to listen. And the coolest parts are the instrumental breaks, with two drummers bashing <em>different</em> rhythms, and Bill Bruford having hysterical fits of cymbal crashing and splashing. This is awesome! Why didn't their instrumentals have <em>this</em> kind of energy?</p>

<p>'People' is quite forgettable, though. I guess it's too reliant on clich&eacute;s that don't sound adequate for King Crimson (e.g. the lyrics going "people this, people that, people [insert something unpredictable here]"), and not very exciting performances. Yeah, not exciting, that's the definition. There are two ballads, though, and they're really good. 'Walking On Air' is best. I like that dreamy, swinging rhythm, and the Latin-tinged melody, and all the backwards solos and similar tricks applied to make this a sort of older brother to 'Matte Kudasai' - of course, the '81 song is way better, but this one is still remarkable. 'One Time' is good, too, and quite catchy even.</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure of my feelings for the album, actually. It looks like a really jumbled mess of <em>things</em> that don't quite develop into something. You know there are albums that have so many completely different elements bumping into each other, but the band chemistry or something like that makes them <em>work</em> and grow into something bigger. But this is not the case here. Luckily, listening to the album isn't a bad experience, and there <em>is</em> some kind of fun running through it. There just isn't any <em>real</em> creativity - to King Crimson's standards, that is. Maybe they weren't in the mood for making albums? These "songs" are good, but these tracks just don't work as an album. I think I solved the mystery. They didn't want to make an album... but they had to. Who knows? I don't. I'm just guessing. if you're a devoted fan, you can explain something to me. Please do so.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Yeah, it <em>is</em> fun. At least, the songs are good.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Eh? Well, some things here trigger my nerves, but most of them don't.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>6/10</strong></big>  - Can you say... underwhelming?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - I mean, there <em>are</em> good things here. But I really don't like 'VROOM VROOM' at all.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>5/10</strong></big>  - Bah!
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 6.8 = <strong class="grade">7</strong>
</p>

<p>Just like King Crimson lost their originality, I lost mine with these <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail me</a> messages...</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Wire</h2>

<h2 id="flag" class="best">Pink Flag (1977)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Three Girl Rumba</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Reuters ++</span></li>
  <li>Field Day For The Sundays <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Three Girl Rumba ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Ex Lion Tamer ++</span></li>
  <li>Lowdown <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Start To Move <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Brazil <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>It's So Obvious <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Surgeon's Girl ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Pink Flag ++</span></li>
  <li>The Commercial <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Straight Line</li>
  <li>106 Beats That</li>
  <li><span class="good">Mr. Suit ++</span></li>
  <li>Strange <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Fragile ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Mannequin ++</span></li>
  <li>Different To Me <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Champs <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Feeling Called Love</li>
  <li><span class="good">12XU ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>And now, to continue this magnificent, grandiose "Various" page, <strong>Pink Flag</strong>! I just started the review like this because I didn't have any other idea of how to begin this review. This is one of those albums that are difficult to review, 'cuz they're so damn <em>different</em>! You just can't appear and place it in a category, nor you can come in and describe it in a few words. It's difficult to talk about this album, because there are <em>so</em> many aspects in it, that I'm left without knowing where to <em>start</em>! Now that I've made you curious, I'll try to review the album.</p>

<p>I was always insisting, trying to make the whole world agree with me that this is <em>not</em> Punk Rock, until reader Andrew Woehrel (of <strong>Quadrophenia</strong> and <strong>OK Computer</strong> fame) suggested me that Wire is a <em>post-Punk</em> band. In his own words: "It's related to punk, and has a D.I.Y. and anti-corporate nature, but it's as diverse as Wire to the Flaming Lips to Joy Division, which are three radically different bands," and I realised that he's 100% correct. So, indeed, Wire can't be considered a Punk band, and be put in the same pack as the Ramones and the Clash, but they are <em>related</em> to it. How related? Well, this kind of music is that kind of simple, short, raw and to-the-point music - more or less like Punk. Few chords, fast tempos, and <em>lots</em> of energy. But what makes it differ from Punk is that: while most Punk bands have an attitude similar to "okay, let's get our instruments and make Rock music the way <em>we</em> can do it," Wire adopts a more... arrogant fashion. This music is snobby, pretentious and pompous, and the band forces us to <em>swallow</em> that music, whether we like it or not. At least, that's the impression I get from this album. After all, these are British art students, you know? It's not surprising that they would make <em>this</em> interpretation of Punk music.</p>

<p>However, if the band has an arrogant attitude, this is <em>precisely</em> why the album's so fucking awesome! Yes, the Sex Pistols were also arrogant, but in a different way: they always swore their purpose was to destroy rock 'n' roll, <em>and</em> they were an industrialised, manufactured act. Wire is no manufactured act, and their purpose is to <em>make</em> music. But they adopt a completely unusual style. These songs are mostly short (no, <em>ridiculously</em> short, really!), the lyrics hardly make sense, the guitar tone is <em>loud</em>, distorted and <em>very</em> raw, and most importantly: these songs are <em>pompous</em> statements. This is not music "for fun". This is <em>ART ROCK</em>, pretending to be Punk. Yet, the amount of energy in these songs is <em>so great</em>, it makes me headbang and sing-along like <em>NOTHING</em> else can: yes, I'm including the Ramones and The Who in this list. <em>NOTHING</em> comes close to this album, as far as "D.I.Y. and anti-corporate nature" is concerned. I'm serious. This is true rock 'n' roll music, yet fits in my collection right next to <strong>Close To The Edge</strong> and <strong>Larks' Tongues In Aspic</strong>.</p>

<p>Another great thing about the album that greatly attracts me is that it's completely <em>unpredictable</em>. There is fast stuff, there is slow stuff, there is loud stuff, there is quiet stuff, there is rocking stuff, there is pop stuff... but you <em>never</em> can even guess what comes next, at least in first hearing! The songs hardly have any coherent and recognisable structure, and before you realise it, they simply stop... and the other one takes off. Songs like 'Brazil', 'It's So Obvious', 'Different To Me' rock like nothing else, and last under one minute. Colin Newman sings some lyrics over the music, and as soon as the lyrics end, <em>presto</em>, the song is over. And there are those crazy acts, like the title track, that starts as a cruel, ominous and slow war song, until the guys enter a "how many? how many? how many?" chant that forever, and they speed up the tempo until they can hardly keep it up! And they begin shouting their lungs off! Isn't that one of the coolest things on Earth? And what about 'Surgeon's Girl', with a ridiculously loud and trashy one-chord guitar riff, and those yells, roars and screams on the "chorus"? And when the song <em>freezes</em> into nowhere? And what about 'Field Day For The Sundays', an extremely fast, little tune that lasts for <em>28 seconds</em>, and has <em>false endings</em>? And the list goes on.</p>

<p><em>Another</em> great thing about the album is that... it's just fucking <em>catchy</em>. These little guitar riffs, vocal melodies and stuff... it's all unforgettable. Heck, even the spots that have no riffs or melodies are catchy just because of the energy and unpredictability. Among the "Punkiest" stuff, we have delightful pop tunes like 'Ex Lion Tamer' (with a great "stay glued to your TV set" hook repeated forever in the end, in an exciting build-up), the extremely beautiful "ballad" 'Fragile', and who could forget the "novelty" 'Three Girl Rhumba'? <em>Nothing</em> beats that two-chord riff, the bouncy drums, and the bass line, over which Colin lays his vocals, and leads everything to an awesome "go undah, go undah, go undaaaaaaaah, YAH!" ending. 'Reuters', that begins the album, is a really cool, cruel slow rocker that doesn't feel as scary as the title track, but it's extremely cool and unforgettable. 'Mannequin' comes out of nowhere, and is just a pseudo-pop tune, with some hilarious backing vocals and a "la la la la" ending. Plus, those lyrics! Man, do I ever know what Colin is talking about. There are also two songs that take a riff and... repeat it forever. 'Lowdown' goes on an on with those two chords, while Colin rants something over them... hey, how David Byrneish... if only 'Seen And Not Seen' had been released before this album. 'Strange' is more "dynamic", and features a really scary series of noises in the ending... Hey, R.E.M. covered this song... in fact, they used to perform this entire album before they were the actual R.E.M.. Neat, huh?</p>

<p>The two songs that deserve special mention here are 'Mr Suit' and the album closer '12XU'. Interestingly, these two songs are ones closer to "Punk", and while I ranted that this album is <em>not</em> Punk Rock, these two end up being the most fun! Well, what can I do? The former has a killer little riff, a catchy as heck "NO NO NO NO NO NO, MR SUIT!" chorus, and some of the greatest lyrics ever written. How come nobody had ever sung "take your fucking money and shove it up your arse" in a song? And the latter is simply crazy. The lyrics are limited to four or five lines, and the riff, the shouts, the build-up at the end... Oh, man, I had never seen a song like this, and I'll doubtfully see another one. Yup, this is an album everyone <em>needs</em> to check out, if only to witness the possibilities of "Post-Punk". One of the best albums I have ever heard, and a worthy inclusion in anyone's collection. Two thumbs up, way up!</p>

<p>... okay, I just stole the <a href="http://www.the-underdogs.org">Home Of The Underdogs</a>' catch phrase... Shame on me! Shame, shame, shame!! Don't tell me you're a victim of that money bug in your blood!!</p>

<p>Have you ever been in that site, by the way? It rocks!!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Heck, I'd give it a <em>100</em> if I allowed myself to do it.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - This thing has fury, speed, loudness, heat... everything!<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - This is, like, an album that <em>had</em> to happen eventually. Someone would have to do it, but Wire did it good!<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - There's more than enough musical content on here to justify all the pomp.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - It is one huge block of fury that must be enjoyed in its entirety. And it <em>should</em> be enjoyed in its entirety.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.8 = <strong class="ten">10</strong>
</p>

<p>Saw you in a mag <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">sending your mail</a>, Saw you in a mag <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">sending your mail</a>, Saw you in a mag <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">sending your mail</a>, Saw you in a mag <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">SENDING YOUR MAIL, YEAH</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="missing">Chairs Missing (1979)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Mercy</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Practice Makes Perfect ++</span></li>
  <li>French Film (Blurred) <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Another The Letter <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Men 2nd <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Marooned</li>
  <li>Sand In My Joints</li>
  <li><span class="good">Being Sucked In Again ++</span></li>
  <li>Heartbeat <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Mercy ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Outdoor Miner ++</span></li>
  <li>I Am The Fly <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>I Feel Mysterious Today <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>From The Nursery</li>
  <li>Used To <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Too Late <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Now, how's this for a change of sound? Eh? Yup, Wire has suddenly abandoned the Punk stylistics, almost completely. While this can kinda be bad news, it's not like <strong>Pink Flag</strong> was great <em>solely</em> because of the Punk stylistics. The band has a recognisable attitude and style, and this attitude and style remain in this album: short, unpredictable songs, simple and catchy moments of music, clever songwriting, and subtle weirdness. What changes dramatically here is the <em>sound</em>. Raw, loud and distorted guitars? Lightning-speed drums and bass? Forget it! This album is gloomy, cold, slow and thumping. Plus, there are synthesizers here. But they are used to create the cold, gloomy atmospheres in album, and don't steal the spotlight from the rest of the band. The bottomline, if the previous album was Art-<em>Punk</em>, this one is definitely <em>Art</em>-Punk. But remember, there's little Punk in here.</p>

<p>Still, the album is definitely great. Good songs everywhere! If you want your rockers, you can have 'Men 2nd' (with a weird little guitar riff), 'Sand In My Joints' (the most Punkish in here, with vocals by someone that's not Colin Newman) and 'Too Late', a cool song with some of the band's "build-ups" displayed all over the album. But I wouldn't recommend these songs to every Punk lover, because they're quite creepy, and, well... un-Punk. You know. They're great songs, but the <em>real</em> meat of the album are the slower, more ominous songs. The two side-openers here are arguably the two best songs. 'Practice Makes Perfect' has a pounding, cruel rhythm in the guitars and the drums, and Colin's insistent vocals, and the shoutfest and noisefest in the end are really, <em>really</em> spooky. 'Mercy' is the longest composition in the album, and the place where the band displays their <em>real</em> loud, cruel-sounding guitars going through several different sections, build-ups and build-downs, with Colin ranting insistently on the microphone. But the more mysterious sounding songs don't deserve any less credit. 'French Film Blurred' and 'I Feel Mysterious Today' are delightfully dark, and 'Marooned'  and 'Used To' are two really gloomy "ballads". The former sounds desolate and lonely - like the title suggests - and who can't forget the vocal line? Yeah, whomever thinks Wire depends only on atmosphere and "weirdness" should be proved wrong with this album.</p>

<p>Yeah, one thing this album might win over <strong>Pink Flag</strong> is 'diversity'. Among these 15 songs, hardly 2 sound alike. Yes, the atmospheres might be similar, but you can always detect a different vibe in, for example, 'From The Nursery' and 'I Am The Fly': be it an eccentric build-up of vocals, or a clever, fun chorus, there's always <em>something</em> in these songs. And that's why the album flows nicely and keeps me interested all the way through. Plus, 'Outdoor Miner' might be their most beautiful song so far: a gorgeous little pop tune that somehow fits in the album flawlessly. 'Being Sucked In Again' also captivates me with all those chord changes, and the cool chorus. 'Another The Letter', in its one-minute glory, speaks much more than some other bands' 5 minute pieces. And 'Heartbeat'? Well, this is one of those "repetitive" ever-building-up songs that builds and builds towards a climax, but halfway through, simple fades away just like it started.</p>

<p>Yeah, it might take you a while to fully enjoy this album - especially when <strong>Pink Flag</strong> was so immediately striking. But you can be sure that this is a great album, and worthy of your attention. It may not be a "Punk" record, but it certainly remains in the "Post-Punk" path - and this time, it's even <em>more</em> recognisable as "Post-Punk". Is it just me, or this album isn't very far from Joy Division? Of course, this isn't a "depressing" album like those Joy Division ones, but that's only for the better. Colin Newman isn't the kind of guy who would make me want to commit suicide... actually, I wouldn't be so sure.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Wonderfully entertaining.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - The atmospheres these guys create are dang captivating.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - The cleverness is here, and it abounds.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Melodies! Riffs! Bucketloads of 'em!<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - More hodge-podgey than <strong>Pink Flag</strong>, if you know what I mean.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.6 = <strong class="grade">9.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Read it all? Good, now <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail your damn ideas</a>!</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Dire Straits</h2>

<h2 id="straits">Dire Straits (1978)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Sultans Of Swing</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Down To The Waterline ++</span></li>
  <li>Water Of Love <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Setting Me Up ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Six Blade Knife ++</span></li>
  <li>Southbound Again <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Sultans Of Swing ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">In The Gallery ++</span></li>
  <li>Wild West End <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Lions <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>This CD is fantastic! Ten songs of absolute perfection. I did sweat a lot to find it, but I eventually did, and it was worth it. I never thought a Simpsons album would be so darned fantastic. I was really, truly blown away.</p>

<p>What? Dire Straits? Aww, I thought I was reviewing <strong>The Simpsons Sing The Blues</strong>! Have you heard that one, already? It rocks. This self-titled debut album by Dire Straits... well, it's great, too! You see, I'm just too happy for owning this Simpsons CD, I think I can't control myself. And as if that wasn't enough reason to be happy, I went to see my friend today. It's been <em>months</em> since I last saw her, and heck, she was even more gorgeous than what I remembered her to be. And she was as fun as ever, and the best way I can possibly spend a day is with her, y'know. In short, this is a fucking great start of a week, and we've had <em>enough</em> bad weeks, you know. So, I'm still in a kind of ecstatic state.</p>

<p>But like I said, this Dire Straits record is great, too. But it's far from the kind of impossible fun of <strong>The Simpsons Sing The Blues</strong>. When that one is a record to the child inside us, <strong>Dire Straits</strong> speaks to the old man inside us. You could say that it's a record for old people, and maybe that's true: the sound is quiet, relaxed and smooth... you know, I hear 'Sultans Of Swing' all the time in PA systems of supermarkets and the like. And that is good, because 'Sultans Of Swing' <em>is</em> one of the songs I <em>like</em> hearing in supermarkets and the like, along with Mike Oldfield's 'Moonlight Shadow' and Captain Beefheart's 'Hair Pie: Bake 1'. But I kinda see this LP differently. I don't think it's a record <em>for</em> old people: it <em>speaks</em> to the old man inside me. Because, heck, the guys doing this record are <em>young</em> and full of energy. They're not old people, they're just guys. And they're trying to be more mature than they are at their age, like the little kid that wants to be "independent" by going home from school all by himself.</p>

<p>And guess what? They <em>succeed</em>! They <em>sound</em> like young people, but the things they say are "old" and "wise" and all that crap your parents say. Aside from that, this album has a certain <em>charm</em> in it... I think it's because the guys are so charismatic. Look at Mark Knopfler, for Chrissake, the guy is uglier than fingernail. But the way he sings and plays his guitar make him look <em>so</em> charming and charismatic, you can't help but go, like, "wow, that guy is really charming and charismatic" in a deep, respectful tone.</p>

<p>I'm sounding all playful here, but I do mean what I say here. This record is a <em>very</em> nice one, and I really like it. It is pleasant to listen to, it's thought provoking, it's catchy and has an unique sound. Very unique, in fact! It sounds, to me, like the band found a sound all of their own: bouncy, jangly, fast and slightly groovy. I don't know if there is a genre for this stuff, because it sounds like very little else. Though I have to admit that, though they did find an unique sound, some songs here sound very alike - say, 'Down To The Waterline' / 'Sultans Of Swing', 'Six Blade Knife' / 'In The Gallery', 'Setting Me Up' / 'Southbound Again'... But that isn't a complaint. You can see them as two "parts" of an idea! It works like that, at least to me. It's not like the album sounds all the same! Not at all! It's not a <em>diverse</em> album, but it is quite varied and isn't boring at all.</p>

<p>Granted, it doesn't mean <em>you</em> won't find it boring. If you require all your music to be loud, fast-moving and hyperactive, you're going to be bored. But me, I'm just dragged away by Marky's vocal acrobatics, his subtle, awesome guitar playing, and the band's extremely tight playing. The band works very well as a whole, indeed. John Illsey and Pick Withers provide a very restrained, but noticeable rhythm section, Mark's brother, David, keeps jangling his rhythm guitar, while Mark does his business as usual. In short, everybody in the house does the Markman.</p>

<p>The songs? Well, great stuff. 'Sultans Of Swing' plays all the time everywhere, but did you take your time to notice how <em>great</em> that song, in fact, is? The lyrics about jazz bands and kids who don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band, the bouncy rhythm, Mark dialoguing with his guitar, the solos, and all that stuff? Great song! The opener, 'Down To The Waterline' begins with a quiet introduction with guitar pickings and cymbals, but soon kicks in a rhythm similar to 'Sultans Of Swing', but groovier, and with cool little vocal hooks. Catchy songs, if you ask me. Great stuff, simply put.</p>

<p>Everywhere else, the band adopts a quieter, slower sound, but no less hard-hitting. In fact, in those spots, Mark sounds even more bitter and sarcastic. What? Do you think he's talking about rainbows and roses? 'In The Gallery' is a slow, dark groove with Mark ranting about artists and whomever decides who can be in the gallery, and someone who picks up an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall. 'Water Of Love' has those percussions and subtle vocal harmonies, and Mark mumbling about how he hates being alone. You get the picture. I particularly love 'In The Gallery', and it's "companion", the even darker 'Six Blade Knife', with that "bm-bmmm, bm-bmmm, bm-bmmm" bass mumbling in the backing, and Mark singing like he's got a sardonic smile on his face (he probably had). On a more upbeat note, 'Setting Me Up' shakes around with that clangy guitar tone bouncing all over the place. and a quirky little rhythm section. Catchy stuff, again! 'Southbound Again' is, perhaps, a tad too similar, but it brings a catchy riff!</p>

<p>The album ends rather mellow. 'Wild West End' is a pretty little ballad with pianos and gentle vocal harmonies. Say, so these guys can do ballads, after all! And the closer 'Lions' just breezes by with nice little vocal hooks, strange, catchy little chords and all. In the end, even if the songs in particular still rule, the album is just one pleasant listen that still manages to touch on your nerves and tease your brain. It's a very good album, and goes to show that you don't need to be loud and obnoxious when you are angry and want to make a statement. Just go out there and listen to these ugly guys. See if you've got a copy of this record somewhere. Mama may have. Papa may have. God bless the child that's got his own.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Oh, it is fun, in its own, mischievous way.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Sure Mark Knopfler will be very <em>close</em> to you through the record, but this is not a "moving" album.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Hmm... Well, to me, these guys sound very original.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Good stuff everywhere. Mark makes these songs sound strangely melodic even when they have no real melody.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Maybe sometimes it gets a bit too samey, but that's a minor quibble.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.6 = <strong class="grade">9.5</strong>
</p>

<p>Mail me at sirmustapha (at) gmail (dot) com. No, this is not to avoid SPAM. This is just to be annoying and make you type the address yourself, or go look at another review for the link.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="gold">Love Over Gold (1982)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Telegraph Road</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Telegraph Road ++</span></li>
  <li>Private Investigations <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Industrial Disease <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Love Over Gold</li>
  <li>It Never Rains <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Wow, <em>five</em> songs? 14-minute 'Telegraph Road'? Yeah, you bet! This is Dire Straits expanding their boundaries: longer songs, pianos and organs, fancy guitar solos, and all that jazz. They aren't turning into a progressive rock band, though. This is just spacey, airy music that takes its time to slowly develop. Yeah, this is artistic growth!... I suppose. Anyway, hail to the one and only Mark Knopfler and his band of merry men.</p>

<p>But anyway, the album is a very good one. It's got that polished, glossy sound, y'know. But it's kinda dark and grim, probably because it mostly deals with the city and the civilisation and stuff. The lengthy 'Telegraph Road' is like the fable of the civilisation, you see. But the lyrics aren't the big point. Mark is a good lyricist, but he's an even better songwriter and guitarist. And 'Telegraph Road' itself is damn good. For a good part of it, it's like a long ballad that alternates sung verses with slower, beautiful piano passages, guitar solos, and stuff. It sounds great, and those piano touches are pure class! Only at the end it gets a bit rougher, and Mark concludes the track with a great guitar solo. What a boring description. Oh, well, it's a great song. It's got a smooth flow, and just never sound flat or dull. You just have to hear it and see it for yourself. The sound pretty much matches the album cover, actually! You should have a better idea by now.</p>

<p>The other tracks are all below the 7 minute mark. 'Telegraph Road' shares the side with 'Private Investigations' - a slow, creeping mood piece. It's mostly some moody classical guitar pickings with Mark mumbling his moody lyrics with that keyboard background and all, but halfway through it, with a subtle twist of instrumentation, the mood is suddenly all angry and dark! Hey, cool stuff. I like subtlety in my music. And who's better than Mark Knopfler in being subtle? On side B, he keeps on doing his soft, gentle kind of rock music, only letting things go a little faster on 'Industrial Disease', a hilarious rocker that somehow predicts 'Money For Nothing' and 'Walk For Life' from the next album! Must be those organs and that chopping guitar. The little organ theme is great, and Mark does his fine Dylan immitation to balance things out. Yep, fun stuff! The other two tracks aren't as 'cheerful', but they aren't grim. They're just mellow and soft. 'It Never Rains' graces us with another mighty guitar solo, and the title track is just a beautiful, piano laden soft ballad for you.</p>

<p>Pretty basic stuff, really. There isn't much to be said. These compositions are <em>simple</em> (in a good way), and mellow. They're just slowly developed and don't present millions of things per minute, though you'll get the clear impression that these songs were <em>written</em> and <em>composed</em>, not just churned out, following a boring formula. It's a good album if you dig stuff like that: a relaxed listen, that's even more relaxed than <strong>Dire Straits</strong> 'cause it's not so ambiguous. Yep, that one had a sneering sarcasm in it, while this one is just a little dark at times. Just don't go expecting loud rock 'n' roll from this stuff. This is Dire Straits for you, and it won't <em>strike</em> you as other albums do. You'll have to grab it with your own hands. If it's worth it or not, I don't know. What I know is that <em>I</em> like it.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Mellow, relaxed, but still very enjoyable.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Um, er...<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Good songs, though... er, "standard". It isn't even idiosyncratic as their first albums were.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/10</strong></big> - Yeah, I'll be generous here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/10</strong></big> - It is cohesive and all that stuff, and it doesn't sound samey! Imagine that.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 9.2 = <strong class="grade">9</strong>
</p>

<p>Go ahead, <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">send me your comments</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="arms">Brothers In Arms (1985)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Money For Nothing</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">So Far Away ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Money For Nothing ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Walk For Life ++</span></li>
  <li>Your Latest Trick <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Why Worry?</li>
  <li>Ride Across The River</li>
  <li>The Man's Too Strong</li>
  <li>One World <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Brothers In Arms ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>A-ha! (No, not A-Ha, the 80's pop group) Sell out! 80's sound! Adult contemporary! Oh, well. Perhaps, it <em>was</em> a sudden, <em>risky</em> twist that Mark took here. You see, in this album, almost all intentions at "art" have gone off the window. I mean, so far, Mark has been fancying his band as a true Art Rock band, with the occasional hit, but, more than anything, a truly artistic band - what with 'Telegraph Road' and all. But here? This is as commercial as an album by a band like Dire Straits can possibly get, no kidding. Heck, Talking Heads' <strong>Little Creatures</strong> could have been an absolutely, blatantly commercial release, but even then, they were experiencing already their first drops of commercial success with <strong>Speaking In Tongues</strong>. This album is as sell out as you can get! It's like Mark took everything that made his band so special and different, and tried to find a way to <em>sell</em> them to the public as efficiently as possible. Remember those polished, glossy instrumental passages and bright production? Let's turn it into soft, adult contemporary easy listening background music! Remember those boppy, playful songs like 'Industrial Disease'? Let's turn it into a hit single and call it 'Walk For Life'! Remember those romantic, lush sonic paintings of guitars and soft keyboards? Let's commercialise it and release 'So Far Away'!</p>

<p>But listen: I am <em>NOT</em> bashing the album. No, sir. But this is the truth. Dire Straits has taken a <em>sharp</em> left turn into commercialism, and you can't deny it. But I'm not saying it's a bad album. You see, there are plenty of commercial releases that are definitely good stuff! Even <strong>Little Creatures</strong>, as spiteful as I am against it, is pretty good. And if you ask me, I like this one <em>far</em> better than the Talking Heads' own commercial product. Why? Because Mark hasn't took the recent hit singles, listened to them one or two times, and tried to do the exact same thing! Mark tried to do his own thing, with his own personality and identity. Interestingly, I don't think this album is technically <em>better</em> than <strong>Little Creatures</strong>: whereas the songs in that album are well-written (or, more accurately, well-COPIED FROM THE <em>ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF POP CLICH&Eacute;S</em>), these songs here sound a bit... patchy? I dunno, but better or worse, I like this album better. It sounds like it was written by someone who <em>UNDERSTANDS ABOUT THE MUSIC BUSINESS</em>, instead of someone who was trying to take the EASY WAY TO FAME AND FORTUNE. Take THAT, David "Road To Nowhere" Byrne! Lots of CAPITALS to you!</p>

<p>But I'm not praising Mark to the high heavens for this album, either. It's definitely not as good as most of Dire Straits' past glories. You see, it <em>is</em> a bit patchy - I can't understand exactly why Mark ran so wild with this "diversity" thang. Can anyone explain to me what are things like 'Ride Across The River', 'The Man's Too Strong' and 'Your Latest Trick' <em>doing</em> here? These songs are so unlike what Mark Knopfler did in his band before, it's almost laughable. They're not bad songs, but... Heh. What I'm wondering is <em>where the hell</em> did Mark take these ideas from. But anyway, I think I said a few times already that I don't care much about "diversity" in an album, in the sense of having millions of "styles" and "genres" in one single disc. So, I won't go all excited about this album being "diverse". No, screw that. Even because I don't see why I should go wild over 'Wild Across The River', for example. How can I describe this without making you laugh? It's got these tribal drums, aboryginal flutes, reggae-like drums... It sounds exactly like a tune from <em>Monkey Island II</em>, albeit with guitars and Knopfler's voice over it. It's pretty nice, but not great. 'The Man's Too Strong' is, apparently, his take on Folk, with those Western-ish guitars, and loud blasts of synthesizer coming up at appropriate spots. At least, this one is quite <em>good</em>, in the sense that it's a solid composition.</p>

<p>Everywhere else, Mark is juggling between slight alterations of what he has been doing so far, and <em>huge</em> deformations on what he has been doing so far. I'm not sure whether I should <em>approve</em> the "adult contemporary" sounds of 'Your Latest Trick' and 'Why Worry' - the former with that lazy trombone solo in the beginning, and a saxophone line in between verses; and the former with a lengthy, slow instrumental coda with cute electric pianos and guitar licks. I mean, adult contemporary is such an abominable genre, I'm not sure if these songs apply to it. They <em>sound</em> like it, but I quite like them. 'Your Latest Trick' is background music for restaurants and pubs where people sit down to talk about business and spend their time, but it's pretty good stuff, and I'll even admit that saxophone melody is a <em>good</em> melody. 'Why Worry' is dangerously close to <em>icky</em> 'optimistic', "There should be sunshine after rain" please-your-mama tunes. But it's quite pleasant, but hardly anything more. I don't even mind the length (8 minutes) - I just think it's not as essential as it seems.</p>

<p>At least, Marky still presents some <em>real</em> good stuff to his listeners. The title track is achingly beautiful and haunting, with a melancholic and touching atmosphere and lyrics. Great guitar work, as usual, and a simply breathtaking overall picture. You know, the lyrics are quite something, man. Just read them for yourselves, or better, listen to the entire song. The guitar solo at the end only improves things, too.</p>

<p>On a poppier, lighter note, 'Walk For Life' is one of those songs that can be recognised only with the initial 2 seconds or so, with that memorable organ sound. That same sound was once used in 'Industrial Disease', you know? But this one is faster, bouncier, and has that catchy, unforgettable organ riff! And what about 'So Far Away'? Everyone knows that one, with its slidey guitar riff, the pleasant vocal delivery, the beautiful sound coming out of the keyboards and everything, and the lengthy, but beautiful ending. Great song! Perhaps the lyrics are a bit bland, this time around, but I reckon it was probably hard to make it commercial with a more, um, "complex" set of lyrics... who knows? I don't know.</p>

<p>Of course, the most memorable song here is arguably 'Money For Nothing', the 8-minute tour-de-force that packed a crunchy riff, a mantraic "I want my MTV" chant, a controversial "the little faggot" line, and a striking video on MTV. What could have been better? It's witty, not only the song itself, but in the way it was presented. Pure genius! The whole song is fun, in a bitter sort of way, and all the sections - carefully and gently extended - make their point extremely well. The only other rocking spot of the album is the slower 'One World', on side two - far less memorable, but also good stuff. At least, it comes as a relief after so much "background" stuff, probably as redemption for those who thought Mark was finally selling out completely to the adult contemporary swamp.</p>

<p>But really, I'm almost willing to take back all the "condemnations" against this album just because of 'Money For Nothing'. Even if it's unusual in Dire Straits' repertoire, it's an essential track - not only in the Dire Straits catalogue, but in the whole 80's - and one of their best. Definitely one of those things <em>only</em> Mark Knopfler could have pulled out. But still, this album <em>is</em> a product of the 80's, and it <em>reeks</em> with Eightiesism. But it's a good album, I can assure you. Not awesome, but good. It's even great, in a certain way.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Yeah... I think 9 is a good rating in this aspect.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>7/10</strong></big>  - Too plastic sometimes. <em>Very</em> plastic, in fact, but only sometimes.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Oh, no. It's rather derivative. It <em>does</em> taste like Dire Straits most of the time, though.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - Yep, good stuff.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/10</strong></big>  - At least, it's a smooth ride.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: 8.4 = <strong class="grade">8.5</strong>
</p>

<p>The <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail</a>'s too strong.</p>

<hr />

<p><a href="index.htm">Back to the Reviews Page index</a></p>

<p>
  <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
      src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10"
      alt="Valid XHTML 1.0!" height="31" width="88" /></a>
</p>

</body>

</html>